ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

NHS Funding

Karl McCartney: What arrangements are in place to ensure increased funding for the NHS during the comprehensive spending review period.

Andrew Lansley: We will increase NHS funding in real terms in each year of this Parliament. Compared to the level of expenditure in the national health service in the last financial year, the resources available to the NHS will increase by £12.5 billion by the end of the spending review period. The budget available for the NHS in the financial year 2011-12 is 3.9% higher than spend in the previous year, 2010-11.

Karl McCartney: Can my right hon. Friend give me any examples of how the increased funding this Government have promised here in England is, unlike what is happening in Wales, delivering better care for our NHS services?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I can indeed do that. We are committed to real-terms increases in the NHS budget in England. According to an analysis by the King’s Fund, the Welsh Assembly Government—a Labour-led Welsh Government —are going to reduce the NHS budget by 8.3% in real terms by 2013-14 in comparison with 2010-11. That might be one reason why it is already the case that in Wales, 26.4% of patients in April 2011 waited more than 18 weeks for treatment.

Christopher Leslie: Will the Secretary of State confirm that his definition of a real-terms increase is based on a 2.9% figure? Will he also confirm that the retail price index actually stands at 5%, so any claim that he is increasing the NHS budget in real terms is a complete and total con?

Andrew Lansley: I think that it has been conventional over many years for the calculation of real terms in public accounting to use the GDP deflator. Given that it includes the prices of investment goods, Government
	services and exports and subtracts the price of UK imports, it gives a more appropriate overall measure of inflation.

Henry Smith: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the increase in the NHS West Sussex budget of £35 million this year, which, coupled with the provisions of the Health and Social Care Bill, means that we will have far greater patient choice in our local area?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I do indeed welcome that. We all know that last year, this year and in future years, increases in the NHS budget in real terms will not be the kind of real-terms increases we saw in the past, but they will be real-terms increases. What we are already seeing in the NHS—we saw it last year—is that with a 2.2% increase in cash spending, there is none the less an ability to sustain, and in many respects improve, performance.

John Healey: In spite of the spin, the truth is that the Prime Minister’s personal promise to give the NHS a real rise in funding is being broken. It is not just how much that counts; it is how well the money is spent. Today is one year to the very day that the Health Secretary launched the Government’s plans to “liberate” the NHS. He told the House:
	“we will phase out the top-down management hierarchy”—[Official Report, 12 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 663.]
	He said that he would reduce “the number and cost” of NHS-related quangos, so why is he setting up the new national commissioning board, set to employ 3,500 people, when even its chief executive says that it
	“could become the greatest quango in the sky we have seen”.
	Why is the right hon. Gentleman setting up more than 500 public bodies in the NHS when 161 do the job now, and why are the Government wasting precious NHS funding on the biggest reorganisation in history, when it could and should be spent on patient care?

Andrew Lansley: Since the election we have reduced the number of managers in the NHS by more than 4,000 and increased the number of doctors by more than 2,000. The NHS commissioning board—I did not hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether he supports it—is part of our strategy to give the NHS not only local clinical leadership but national leadership through it. The functions covered by the board are currently undertaken by something approaching 8,000 staff; the number delivering those functions in future will go down to 3,500 staff, so the reduction in administration will be dramatic.

John Healey: We had plans to reduce bureaucracy, which were published, and we also said that the Government should keep Labour’s waiting time guarantees for patients, which the Health Secretary told the House a year ago today were “unjustified” targets, which he would remove. The Prime Minister has now promised to keep waiting times low, but after one wasted year of NHS reorganisation by the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, an extra 25,000 patients a month are waiting more than four hours in accident and emergency departments, an extra 12,000 patients a month are waiting more than six weeks for tests, and an extra 2,300 patients a month are waiting more than 18 weeks to get into hospital for the
	treatment they need. The NHS deputy chief executive has called the rise in long waiting times this year “unacceptable”. Does the Health Secretary agree?

Andrew Lansley: As we said in the NHS constitution, we do not intend patients to be waiting for more than 18 weeks. [Hon. Members: “They are!”] The April figures show that we met the operational standard, which is that more than 90% of admitted patients and more than 95% of non-admitted patients should be treated within 18 weeks. The right hon. Gentleman’s analysis of waiting times did not include the fact that the average time for which patients waited for treatment in April was 7.7 weeks, down from 8.4 weeks in May 2010. The average time for which patients wait is being reduced.

Funding Care and Support

Bill Esterson: What assessment he has made of the conclusions and recommendations of the recent report by the Commission on Funding of Care and Support.

Chris Ruane: What assessment he has made of the conclusions and recommendations of the recent report by the Commission on Funding of Care and Support.

Gisela Stuart: What assessment he has made of the conclusions and recommendations of the recent report by the Commission on Funding of Care and Support.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: What assessment he has made of the conclusions and recommendations of the recent report by the Commission on Funding of Care and Support.

Paul Burstow: As the Secretary of State said in his statement to the House last week, the Government welcome the report of the Commission on Funding of Care and Support and will consider its recommendations carefully.

Bill Esterson: The Government may say that they welcome the report, but can the Minister explain why the White Paper on social care will now be published in spring 2012 rather than in December 2011, as the commission’s report recommends? Do the Government want it to be kicked into the long grass because of Treasury interference?

Paul Burstow: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. The Government’s approach is to have discussions with the official Opposition and to engage fully with stakeholders from Age UK, Carers UK and many other organisations, not just about funding reform—which is an important part of our reform of social care—but about questions of quality and law reform.

Chris Ruane: My constituency in central north Wales contains a high percentage of pensioners, many of whom come from the industrial cities of the north-west and Birmingham. What protocols exist to deal with cross-border issues involving pensioners’ care?

Paul Burstow: That important question must be partly addressed by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the Welsh Assembly, but one of the issues raised by the Law Commission’s recommendations on law reform that we must address is that of ordinary residence tests to ensure that people have access to the right care at the right time and in the right place.

Gisela Stuart: The Minister said that he was engaging fully with stakeholders. Does that include the Treasury, given reports that the Dilnot proposals are being strangled at birth?

Paul Burstow: Cross-government discussions take place about any matter that requires legislation and funding—and of course the Treasury plays its part in those discussions.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Does the Minister agree that the Government need to act quickly on the commission’s report, not least because the Southern Cross situation, which is affecting many people in my constituency, has shown that the current model, which involves relying largely on private care, is simply not sustainable?

Paul Burstow: We will return to that important matter later, with the urgent question. However, we must examine the position of Southern Cross and the business model that underpinned it very carefully, in order to understand how such a model was agreed to under the arrangements for regulating care providers that existed before the establishment of the Care Quality Commission.

Stephen Dorrell: It is now more than a decade since Sir Derek Wanless first identified a funding gap in long-term care for the elderly. I welcome the Dilnot report, but will the Government act quickly to establish a partnership arrangement enabling private money contributed through insurance to be added to some public money, so that that funding gap can be filled?

Paul Burstow: The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question is that the Government are already committed, through the spending review, to the provision of an additional £7.2 billion for social care over the next four years, which will involve an unprecedented transfer of resources from the NHS to social care. As for the second part of his question, the Dilnot report makes many recommendations, and the Government will work through them and present their conclusions next year.

Duncan Hames: The question of who benefits from the proposals, and by how much, depends on the assumptions made about the potential maximum outlay on care home residence under the existing arrangements. That may change as the length of time for which people live in care increases. Does the Minister accept that if the implementation of the proposals is to be progressive, both now and in the future, the Government will need to test, and keep under review, their assumptions about the longest likely duration of care in homes?

Paul Burstow: That is an important point. One of the factors that will change those assumptions is the extent of our effectiveness in preventing and postponing the
	need for such services. “A vision for adult social care”, which we published last year, emphasised the need for more investment in preventive measures. That is why we have provided, and continue to provide, additional resources for reablement, which not only does the individuals concerned a great deal of good but saves money for social services authorities.

Sarah Newton: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the months before the White Paper is published it will be important to take time to build the necessary all-party cross-House support for long-lasting reform?

Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the exchanges on the Secretary of State’s statement last week made it plain that we are committed to having those discussions and working to secure a long-lasting reform. That is the only way in which such a reform can secure the necessary changes, both in law and funding, for this country.

Rachel Reeves: The Southern Cross crisis is causing extreme anxiety to the people who live in the homes, including the one at Hopton Mews in Armley, in my constituency. How will the Government ensure that local authorities and the Care Quality Commission have the necessary resources to oversee the transfer of homes to their new operators?

Paul Burstow: I shall certainly elaborate on how we are doing that in greater detail later. For some months we have been working with the landlords, the lenders and Southern Cross, and making sure that local authorities are fully prepared for any likely contingency and the CQC is ready to deal with re-registrations, should that become necessary.

Emily Thornberry: The Minister of State has told us that one of the reasons why the publication of the White Paper has been delayed is to allow cross-party talks, so I wonder whether he can help us: when will the meeting between the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition take place?

Paul Burstow: I am surprised that the hon. Lady does not know. As I understand it, there is a date in all three people’s diaries, but it is not for me to share that date. Although we do need to have cross-party talks between the leaders and the health spokespeople involved, we should also look back and draw some lessons from the royal commission on long-term care. What surprises me is that when that report was published by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), all that was offered was a debate—not a debate that the Government would lead, but a debate that would take place across the country. We are still waiting for the end of that debate. This Government have a timetable and a commitment to engage.

Cancer Outcomes (Accountability)

John Baron: What arrangements he plans to put in place to ensure clinical commissioning groups are held accountable for their performance in respect of cancer outcomes.

Andrew Lansley: The first NHS outcomes framework includes a number of outcomes relevant to people with cancer. For example, domain 1, on preventing people from dying prematurely, includes progress in improving one-year and five-year survival rates for breast, lung and colorectal cancers. A number of indicators will also be relevant to patients with cancer, such as health-related quality of life for people with long-term conditions, and improving the experience of care for people at the end of their lives. Clinical commissioning groups will be held to account for their contributions to improving those national outcomes through the commissioning outcomes framework.

John Baron: The all-party group on cancer and others lobbied for a greater focus on outcomes, but the one-year and five-year cancer survival rates may now be less statistically robust, as CCGs cover smaller population sizes than primary care trusts. Will the Government therefore give added priority to the excellent work of the National Cancer Intelligence Network in producing a set of evidence-based process measures to complement, not replace, other evidence so that CCGs can be held accountable?

Andrew Lansley: The House will know of my hon. Friend’s consistent support, through the all-party group, for patients with cancer. I entirely agree that a number of proxy measures and process measures will be relevant in the context of the commissioning outcomes framework. There may be measures that are attributable to CCGs individually in some respects. For example, the quality of life of people living with long-term conditions, to which I referred, would be relevant to a small population. For other measures, however, it may be appropriate for the CCGs to be held to account at the level of, for example, a cancer network, using cancer registry data.

David Blunkett: The considerable improvement and focus on breast, lung and bowel cancer is very welcome, but groups campaigning on prostate and ovarian cancer are extremely worried about both the lack of update guidance and the failure to reverse premature death, especially in ovarian cancer, over the last 30 years. Has the Secretary of State anything new to tell us about the direction in these areas?

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman will doubtless be aware that we published a quality standard for ovarian cancer, and that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), published the outcomes strategy for cancer, which will have been relevant to many of the issues to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I continue to look forward to the results of a major trial on screening for ovarian cancer, but I am afraid that I anticipate that we shall not be able to see the results and recommendations for nearly three years.

GP Services

Simon Hughes: How many 24-hour GP services are in operation; and if he will make a statement.

Simon Burns: We are not aware of any GP practices that offer services on a 24-hour basis.

Simon Hughes: Will the Minister confirm that the Government would have no objection, and would not put any barrier in the way, if Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and the local Southwark services wished to set up a 24-hour service at Guy’s hospital, with the collaboration of the local community?

Simon Burns: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the local NHS has responsibility for commissioning local primary care services, and in doing so it must take into account the results of the local population and their needs. If he is working with the hospitals and organisations that he has mentioned and he has some constructive ideas that they are going to consider, I too would be personally interested to hear from him about how they envisage doing things.

Ben Bradshaw: What has happened to the Labour Government’s guarantee that everybody should be entitled to see their GP within 24 hours, and also be able to book an appointment more than 48 hours ahead? Will the Minister publish a full performance table for GPs, so that the public can make an informed choice?

Simon Burns: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the access measures concerning people being able to see their GP within a reasonable period of time are set out in the quality and outcomes framework. The evidence that I have seen certainly shows that our approach is generally working very well, although there are variations in different parts of the country, especially London, where I believe there is scope for improvement.

NHS Reorganisation

Valerie Vaz: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the cost to the public purse of NHS reorganisation arising from the proposed changes to the Health and Social Care Bill.

Simon Burns: The Treasury had sight of the impact assessment published alongside the Health and Social Care Bill, which estimated savings of about £5 billion by 2014-15, and £1.7 billion a year thereafter. A revised impact assessment will be published as the Bill progresses.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Minister for his helpful answer. Given that there are to be new structures—the NHS commissioning board, the clinical senates, the local commissioning groups and Public Health England—will there be new money for them, or will the money come out of the allocated budget?

Simon Burns: I thank the hon. Lady for her helpful question. As she will appreciate, the money will come out of the existing allocations, but what she needs to understand is that as a result of this, and as a result of improving and cutting out wasteful inefficiencies and bureaucracy, we will actually be saving significant sums. Administration will be cut by a third, so that we can invest all the savings in front-line services.

Gavin Williamson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although there is a cost in making these changes, it will have been paid back within two years, and that £5 billion a year will be available to be invested in front-line services and making sure that people in South Staffordshire get the best possible from their health service?

Simon Burns: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, because not only are his figures correct, but thereafter until the end of the decade there will be savings of £1.7 billion a year, on current projections. Every single penny of that will be reinvested in front-line services for patients.

Diane Abbott: The Minister continues to insist that his reorganisation will result in savings that will be reinvested in patient care. Yet even before we have the impact assessment for the changes in the legislation, we know, as will Members across this House, that on a daily basis people are leaving primary care trusts with their redundancy money. That totals £800 million and upwards, and it has not been costed. We also know that the Royal College of General Practitioners has said that we will have gone from having 163 statutory organisations to having 521. Are not the costs of this misconceived car crash of a reorganisation spiralling out of control?

Simon Burns: The reality is that the hon. Lady does not understand, or will not accept, the figures published in the impact assessment. What she does not like is the fact that by the end of this Parliament there will be savings of about £5 billion, and thereafter of £1.7 billion until the end of the decade. That will all be reinvested in front-line services. The hon. Lady will not accept, and wishes to misrepresent to members of the public, the resulting benefits in improved and enhanced patient care.

Dentistry

Mark Lancaster: What steps he has taken to increase access to NHS dentistry since May 2010.

Andrew Lansley: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the number of people with access to NHS dentistry has increased by nearly three quarters of a million over the past year.

Mark Lancaster: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. In Milton Keynes in recent years we have seen greater access to dentistry. One area of particular concern is access to dentistry for children, so may I press my right hon. Friend on how exactly he will address that problem?

Andrew Lansley: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have made it very clear that, contrary to the practice of the previous Government, we are not looking for dentists to deny access to NHS dentistry to children whose parents are not registered with them. Alongside increasing access to dentistry as a whole, we intend specifically to secure increased access for children to NHS dentistry. That will be even more the case in the pilots that we will start this month, which are specifically intended to
	secure a more preventive approach to dentistry, which maintains good oral health. That is especially important for children.

Andrew Gwynne: Does the Secretary of State not understand that there has been real progress with the Tameside and Glossop primary care trust and their “access, booking and choice” facility, which guarantees access to NHS dentistry when they require it for anyone not already registered with an NHS dentist? Does he not understand that there are real concerns that with his reorganisation, and without that priority focus by the primary care trust, those advances may be lost?

Andrew Lansley: On the contrary, with the progressive transfer of responsibilities to the NHS commissioning board there will be much more consistency in contracting for access to NHS dentistry, which at the moment is often a lottery in different places across the country, with the amounts paid per unit of dental activity varying dramatically between neighbouring practices. The new pilots are intended to achieve something that was not achieved under either of the two previous dental contracts, by securing a much stronger preventive approach based on capitation and registration for dentists. It has been welcomed by the dental profession and it promises a great deal for a new contract.

Paul Beresford: You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that I have some slight interest in this subject. Access to NHS dentistry is related to what is on offer. Does the Secretary of State agree that with the huge advances in dentistry, we should be reviewing what is and is not available, and what should or should not be available, from NHS general dental practitioners?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will know that under the new dental contracts, I want to arrive at a point where everybody who wishes to has access to NHS dentistry. I was pleased to see that when we set out the details of the piloting proposal, the chair of the British Dental Association’s general dental practice committee, Dr John Milne, said:
	“we are encouraged that the Department of Health is to begin testing new ways of delivering care. We are pleased that two principles that we believe are particularly important—quality of care and a continuing care relationship between practitioner and patient—are central to what is being piloted.”
	As in other areas, we are moving from a system that simply incentivises activity to one that is much more focused on quality and outcomes.

GPs (Premium Rate Telephone Numbers)

Mark Pawsey: What guidance his Department issues on the use by GP surgeries of premium rate telephone numbers.

Anne Milton: The Department has amended the general medical services regulations to prohibit GP practices from using telephone numbers that charge patients more than the equivalent cost of calling a geographical number to contact the NHS. Since April this year, GPs have not been allowed to use a number that charges patients more than the cost of an equivalent geographical call.

Mark Pawsey: I have been contacted by a constituent who is a patient at a practice in Rugby that uses telephony based on 084 numbers. My constituent is concerned about the additional charges incurred by patients when contacting the surgery by phone, particularly by mobile phone. Will the Minister update the House on the work of the Department in ensuring that GP surgeries do not use such numbers unnecessarily?

Anne Milton: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I understand that five GP surgeries in NHS Warwickshire use 084 numbers, and that the primary care trust has been assured that patients using those numbers are not charged more than the cost of using an equivalent local number. It is absolutely clear that there is no distinction between landlines, mobiles or payphones. The directions are very clear that patients should not expect to be charged any more.

Andrew Love: I, similarly, have three GP practices that use those telephone numbers. I have made extensive contact with my local PCT about this, but it did not seem to know what to do. Can the Minister assure us that the clear advice she is giving here today will be distributed around the health service, so that we can put an end to this?

Anne Milton: The Department is very clear, and the general medical services contract makes it very clear, that GPs are not allowed to do it. There are a number of options open to GPs who already have such telephone contracts, such as calling patients back, altering the contract arrangements or, indeed, paying the costs themselves.

Patient Outcomes

Matthew Offord: What steps he is taking to improve NHS patient outcomes.

Andrew Lansley: I am committed to ensuring that the NHS achieves improved outcomes for patients. The NHS outcomes framework will drive continuous improvement in those outcomes. By way of example, we have made good progress in reducing the number of health care associated infections. In the year ending March 2011 the number of MRSA bloodstream infections decreased by 22% and clostridium difficile infections decreased by 15%, compared with the year before. Those are key positive results in the drive to protect patients from avoidable harm.

Matthew Offord: I applaud the Minister for his work in those areas, and I draw attention to the increased work in cancer care, which I also applaud. However, may I ask him to assure the House that he will not lose focus on other areas, such as mental health, and that the Government will continue to address problems in those areas, which have such consequences across the country?

Andrew Lansley: I certainly will. Indeed, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), and I launched the outcomes strategy for mental health earlier this year, in order to make it absolutely clear that across the
	NHS, and indeed public health, we ensure that mental health services attract the right priority and focus as we develop outcome measures.

Liz Kendall: The Prime Minister has promised that waiting times will not rise despite his massive NHS reorganisation, but we now know that in May 15,500 patients waited more than six weeks for their diagnostic tests—four times as many as last year—and that 1,800 waited more than three months, which is 10 times as many as last year. Average waits for diagnostic tests are also up. Does the Minister agree with the Royal College of Physicians that those increased waits, including waits for vital tests to diagnose cancer, will harm patient care: yes or no?

Andrew Lansley: No, we have met the standard that patients should not wait longer than 18 weeks—a 90% standard for admitted patients and 95% for non-admitted patients. If I recall correctly, the latest data for diagnostic tests showed that there was a 1.9 week average wait for diagnostic tests, which compares with 1.8 weeks in May last year. On cancer waiting times we have achieved an improvement—up to 96%—in the number of patients who are seen by a specialist within two weeks. The hon. Lady really needs to go back and talk to her colleagues in Wales, where 26% of patients wait longer than 18 weeks, compared with fewer than 10% of patients here; indeed, many patients in Wales wait more than 36 weeks. We have a contrast between a coalition Government in England who are investing in the health service, with improving performance, and a Labour Government in Wales who are cutting the NHS budget and seeing performance decline.

Health Care Infrastructure Projects

Daniel Poulter: What steps his Department is taking to provide funding for healthcare infrastructure projects.

Simon Burns: The Department’s capital budget for this spending review period will be higher in real terms than spending in 2010-11. Forecast capital spending in 2010-11 is £4.2 billion and the amount available in 2011-12 is £4.4 billion. By 2014-15, the total amount of capital made available since the start of the Parliament will be £22.1 billion.

Daniel Poulter: Is the Minister as concerned as I am about the failure of Suffolk primary care trust to act to invest in proper buildings and infrastructure for the Gipping valley practice in Claydon in my constituency? That practice has been forced to treat patients out of a portakabin for 15 years now. Will he agree to meet me, and local doctors and patient groups, to see whether we can find a solution to the problem?

Simon Burns: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns. As he will appreciate, the matter is primarily for the local NHS. If it is any consolation to him, I am advised that Suffolk PCT will continue to work with the GP practice on the issues, but I would be more than happy to see my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further.

Older People (Social Care)

Stella Creasy: What estimate he has made of the change in net public expenditure on older people’s social care since April 2010.

Paul Burstow: The latest available data on social care expenditure are for 2009-10, when net expenditure on social care for older people was £7.5 billion.

Stella Creasy: Many of my constituents will have been deeply concerned by the admission of Peter Hay, the president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, that nearly £1 billion is being taken out of social care budgets following cuts to local government, and by his warnings about the consequences for provision. When will the Minister deliver interim funding relief, so that patients are not stuck in hospitals because they cannot be discharged, and so that we can be sure that we will avoid a crisis in social care?

Paul Burstow: If the hon. Lady had read on, she would have found that £700 million of the £1 billion is to be found not through cuts in services, but through efficiency savings, for example through the use of telecare, which significantly reduces costs, and investment in reablement services, which save resources and help people to get back on their feet. That is all in the report that she is waving around. When it comes to investment, the Government have already made clear their commitment through the spending review, and are investing, by the end of this Parliament in 2014-15, an additional £2 billion—something that her party did not do when in government.

Bob Blackman: The extra money being given to adult social care should be good news, but in Harrow, the council, which is Labour-run, has applied the £2.1 million additional funding to redundancies in general areas, rather than passing it on to the weak and the vulnerable. Will my hon. Friend take action to ensure that the new money provided by the Government reaches the people who need it?

Paul Burstow: I am absolutely determined to make sure that the additional resources that the NHS is transferring to social care deliver real benefits for people who need social care services, protect services, and allow local authorities to make the right decisions about how they continue to support not just investment in prevention, but those most in need.

Pat Glass: It is disappointing that we will now not see the Government’s White Paper until the spring, but will the Government agree to take forward the commission’s recommendations on national eligibility criteria and portable care assessments? The Minister will understand that that is now urgent, given the Southern Cross crisis.

Paul Burstow: The hon. Lady raises a question about eligibility; of course, we know from the latest figures in an ADASS survey that the majority of local authorities moved, under Labour, to “substantial” needs being the test for access to social care; that happened on her
	watch, not this Government’s watch. When it comes to portability, the Law Commission has made recommendations that the Government have to consider, and yes, we need to look to legislate on that.

Hazel Blears: The Minister was present this morning at the launch of a report on dementia care by the all-party group on dementia. He will know that the key recommendation is to shift resources from acute hospital care to more preventive services in the community. What steps will he take to ensure that that shift really happens, over and above the £1 billion that has been allocated, much of which has already been spent by local authorities on plugging the gaps caused by other cuts in their budgets?

Paul Burstow: As the right hon. Lady was at the presentation, she will know that it was also identified that we currently spend about £8 billion on dementia services, and the Audit Commission identified that we could save at least £300 million through better use of preventive and early-intervention services. The Government have set out a very clear approach. First, we need to invest in services to provide for earlier diagnosis, because that is the best way to plan for dementia. Secondly, we need investment in services in our hospitals that shorten the length of stay and deliver good quality. Thirdly, we need care homes with the right training for staff, so that they can manage dementia and behaviour problems effectively.

Mixed-sex Wards

Alun Cairns: What progress he has made in reducing the use of mixed-sex accommodation in the NHS.

Simon Burns: In just six months, the number of reported breaches of mixed-sex accommodation guidance has fallen by 83%, from 11,802 in December 2010 to 2,011 in May 2011. Across England, the reported breach rate is now 1.4 per 1,000 finished consultant episodes, compared to 8.4 per 1,000 FCEs in December 2010.

Alun Cairns: A 93-year-old female patient from my constituency was placed in a cardiac ward opposite a mental health patient who also needed cardiac treatment. This male patient was much younger and was left in a near-naked state for much of the day. That caused so much distress to my constituent that she discharged herself early. What effort and focus can the Minister give to the NHS in Wales to ensure that such breaches and mixed-sex wards are ended?

Simon Burns: I am saddened to hear my hon. Friend’s account of what happened in a hospital in, I assume, his constituency. I can appreciate how distressing it is. As he will understand, that comes within the responsibility of the Welsh Administration as a devolved power. My advice to my hon. Friend is two things. I hope the Welsh Assembly will, first, follow the example of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and concentrate on reducing mixed-sex accommodation, and secondly, stop cutting funding for the health service so that it can afford to do that.

Mark Spencer: Can the Minister explain briefly how he has managed to make such rapid progress in 12 months, given that the previous Administration made no progress whatsoever?

Simon Burns: My hon. Friend has hit on an important issue. The answer is clarity of purpose and vision on the part of my right hon. Friend not only to talk the talk, but to walk the walk and achieve dignity for patients in the NHS in England.

Hospital-acquired Infections

David Burrowes: What progress he has made in reducing rates of hospital-acquired infections.

Anne Milton: As the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), has just said, clarity and vision are what is needed. The coalition agreement made it clear that the NHS should adopt a zero tolerance approach to all avoidable health care-associated infections, which have caused so many problems for the public over so many years. In 2010-11, there were just under 1,500 MRSA bloodstream infections. That is a decrease of 22% on the previous year. That means that infections are at their lowest level since mandatory surveillance was introduced. In the same period, there were just under 22,000 occurrences of C. difficile infections, which is a 15% decrease compared to the previous year. We will continue with our zero tolerance approach.

David Burrowes: I thank the Minister for that reply and the rapid progress made under this Government. I welcome the new C. difficile objective and the publication of weekly statistics, but does the Minister share my concern that it is the same hospitals that keep appearing with the highest number of C. diff cases? What is her Department doing to help those hospitals reduce such cases?

Anne Milton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the previous Administration there was a national target of reducing C. difficile infections by 30% by 2011, but that does not address the problem because, as he rightly says, there are hospitals that consistently had high rates of infections, so we changed that. Since April, every PCT and every acute trust has its own objective. The organisations with the highest rates of infection will have more ambitious objectives than those that are doing well.

Children’s Heart Services

Nicholas Dakin: What progress has been made on the review of children’s congenital heart services.

Simon Burns: The consultation on the future of children’s congenital services ended on 1 July. The joint committee of primary care trusts, which is overseeing the consultation, is expected to make a decision later this year, based on an independent analysis of the consultation, reports from overview and scrutiny committees, and a health impact assessment.

Nicholas Dakin: I thank the Minister for his reply and his thoughtful response to the Back-Bench debate that took place in the Chamber. Will he ensure that if any further reconfiguration options have emerged from the consultation, they are properly considered and go out to further consultation before a decision is made?

Simon Burns: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance on that.

Greg Mulholland: Further to the previous question, if there are further options in addition to the four already presented, I ask that the Government do not rule out looking at the matter again if it is shown that it is possible for Leeds and Newcastle to serve the north of England?

Simon Burns: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I do not want to be drawn into that too far because this is an independent assessment by the joint committee of primary care trusts and I do not want to be seen to be interfering, but I can say that neither we, nor the JCPCT have ever said categorically exactly how many centres there should be. It will be up to the JCPCT, as it considers the representations it receives, to decide how many there should be. If it decides to have more than four, it would not need the processes that he is suggesting because it has the power within its remit to increase the number if it thinks circumstances warrant it.

Older People (Cancer Care)

Sharon Hodgson: What steps he is taking to improve cancer care for older people.

Paul Burstow: We are working with Macmillan Cancer Support and Age UK on a £1 million programme to improve cancer care for older people. The programme consists of 13 pilot sites across the country to improve intervention rates for people over 70 who have a cancer diagnosis. Pilots will introduce new ways of assessing older people for cancer treatment, offer short-term, practical support for older people undergoing cancer treatment and will address any age discrimination in cancer services by identifying and addressing the training needs of all professionals working with older people.

Sharon Hodgson: I am sure that the Minister will have seen the report published today by the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation, which reiterates the considerable research showing that older lung cancer patients do not receive the same level of treatment as younger lung cancer patients. In fact, it shows that a 60-year-old sufferer is six times more likely to be given surgery than an 80-year-old sufferer, which obviously means that their outcomes are considerably worse. How does the Minister explain that inequality and how can it be tackled?

Paul Burstow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting that further piece of evidence that shows why the Government have already given a commitment to ensure that there are no exemptions for the NHS from the application of our duties in respect of age discrimination, as there should be no place for age
	discrimination in the NHS. In addition, the work we are doing with Macmillan Cancer Support and Age UK is the way forward to ensure that we learn the lessons and drive up standards for the care of older people.

Topical Questions

Rachel Reeves: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Andrew Lansley: My responsibility is to lead the national health service in delivering improved health outcomes in England, to lead a public health service that improves the health of the nation and reduces health inequalities and to lead the reform of adult social care that supports and protects vulnerable people.

Rachel Reeves: Having met families and patients who use the children’s heart unit in Leeds, I know the value of that service. Does the Secretary of State agree that asking families to travel across the country, which is the stark reality they face if the unit is closed down, puts at risk the family support that is so important to children during these difficult times, and will he pledge to do all he can to keep the heart unit open?

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that the hon. Lady will have heard the reply from the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), who explained the continuing process that the joint committee of primary care trusts will undertake. In the context of her question, it is important to make it clear that the intention of the review is not to close paediatric cardiac centres. Surgery in some of the centres might cease, depending on the conclusions the committee reaches, but they will continue to provide specialist non-surgical services for local populations. The review intends to ensure that as much non-surgical care is delivered as close to children’s homes as possible through the development of local congenital heart networks.

Claire Perry: Under the previous Government, Savernake hospital in my constituency was redeveloped. As a result, taxpayers have got stuck with nearly £1 million a year in private finance initiative unitary charges and local services offered have been cut drastically. Will the Minister undertake to look at all hospitals labouring under uneconomic PFI burdens and meet me to discuss the Savernake hospital situation specifically?

Simon Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because she has been campaigning on this issue for more than a year, and rightly so. Work is being done on the whole issue of PFI and the NHS to ensure value for money. Given her concerns, I would be more than happy to meet to discuss this particular case.

John Healey: I want to say to the Health Secretary directly that it is a disgrace how he and his Ministers have ducked responsibility for reassuring more than 30,000 elderly and vulnerable residents whose homes may be at risk because of the financial crisis at Southern Cross. Today’s urgent question is the second time in a month that this House has had to
	drag Ministers to Parliament to explain what is going on. Southern Cross is set to close down completely by October. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment this afternoon to the residents of Southern Cross, their families and 40,000 staff that Ministers will in future show leadership and make public statements to this House?

Paul Burstow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He will of course know that when the first urgent question was asked, the Government had already provided a written ministerial statement setting out these matters in great detail, and we are happy to answer the questions that hon. Members will want to put in the urgent question later on. We have also said throughout that we do not help the welfare or interests of residents by an ongoing running commentary on these matters.

Rob Wilson: Despite the Government making available an additional £400 million for primary care trusts to support carers, I understand that my local Princess Royal Trust carers service is finding it very hard to engage with the local PCT in my constituency. Will Ministers remind PCTs to follow guidance and work with local carers’ organisations to develop plans for using the additional Government money that has been provided?

Paul Burstow: I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. The NHS operating framework that the Government published last December makes it abundantly clear that primary care trusts need to work with their local authorities and care organisations to agree a budget and, where possible, to pool it so that it can be provided to individuals to enable them to get respite in the way that suits them best. I will certainly be pursuing this through the Government’s normal assurance processes to ensure that these things happen through the operating framework, but the hon. Gentleman might also want to invite his local overview and scrutiny committee to call to account local commissioners for the way in which they are behaving at the moment.

John Spellar: NHS West Midlands is cutting nurse training next year by a fifth and predicting a reduction of 7.25% over five years in the qualifying work force—not bureaucrats, but nurses—thereby denying youngsters in this country training for a worthwhile profession and career. Is not this a scandal and a shambles, and what is the Minister going to do about it?

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman may not know this, but following representations made directly to me I have looked at this very carefully. The strategic health authority is currently responsible for the number of nursing commissions that it undertakes. It has assessed the number of commissions that it should undertake based on its future work force requirements and has reached the conclusion that it is indeed reducing the number of commissions in the west midlands. That is not true to the same extent in other strategic health authorities across the country. In the listening exercise conducted by the NHS Future Forum, further recommendations were made about how we can reform education and
	training, and we will be taking those forward to try to ensure that there is greater collective understanding of work force requirements.

David Ward: Recent figures show that just over 40% of Bradfordians have not visited a dentist in the past two years, and many of my constituents say that that is simply because they cannot get an NHS dentist. Does the Minister agree that it would be extremely difficult for a centralised national commissioning board to deal with this insufficient supply of NHS dentists at a local level?

Andrew Lansley: I am interested in my hon. Friend’s point. As he will have heard in response to an earlier question, we are already increasing access to NHS dentistry, with a 0.75 million increase in the space of a year. In fact, it is probably possible to address more effectively some of these questions of access to dentistry through a consistent national contract that can be responded to locally through the work of the health and well-being boards, which will be able to make their own recommendations through the joint strategic needs assessment.

Yvonne Fovargue: Given that the UK has the worst one-year and five-year survival rates for lung cancer compared with Australia, Canada, Norway, Sweden and Denmark, as has been highlighted today by the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation report, what measures is the Secretary of State taking to improve the detection of lung cancer symptoms in primary care?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady will know that we are focusing, as I said in response to an earlier question, on improving survival rates at one and five years for lung cancer, among other cancers. One essential task is to improve public awareness of the symptoms of lung cancer, and we are already piloting means by which we can do that. At the same time, there have been research trials on the effectiveness of X-ray screening for lung cancer, and we will look at the results shortly.

Mary Macleod: I have been contacted by a constituent who has just graduated in dentistry but has been unable to find a placement for his dental foundation year. What support are we giving such students so that we increase access to NHS dentistry?

Andrew Lansley: I understand that more dentists are currently employed in the UK than ever before. My hon. Friend makes an important point and if she is able to provide further details, I will pursue it, because one objective of deaneries should be to ensure that the major investment that we put into the initial education of dentists is followed through in professional training.

Anas Sarwar: Some 3,500 residents at 98 Southern Cross care homes, including 48 residents at Arcadia Gardens in my constituency, are facing an uncertain future. The Scottish Government have today said that they will work on the presumption that those people will still be in their homes after this crisis. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with Scottish Ministers about finding new operators and a solution that does not show complacency, but delivers continuity of care for the residents?

Paul Burstow: That is exactly what the Government are doing. We have had those discussions with the devolved Administrations, and officials are engaged with the landlords and lenders to ensure that they are doing just that. I look forward to answering the urgent question shortly.

Andrew George: It is acknowledged that the rising rates of norovirus are worse where there is a shortage of acute hospital beds. How does the Secretary of State square the understandable desire to get on top of hospital-acquired infections with his zeal to reduce acute hospital beds?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He will understand that each hospital trust or acute trust must be responsible for ensuring that there is not an excessive length of stay for patients and that it has the ability to isolate patients if necessary. Norovirus is one circumstance in which trusts often have to open additional capacity. In my experience of hospitals, that is precisely what is generally done. There is an ability to open new capacity if necessary when norovirus strikes.

Jenny Chapman: Consulting on changes to health services is not an easy thing to get right. I think that the Secretary of State would agree with that. Will he undertake to look at the consultation taking place in County Durham and Darlington on acute stroke services, because I and the local council believe it to be misleading?

Andrew Lansley: I will, of course, look at that consultation, with which I am not directly familiar. The four tests that I set out shortly after the election of understanding patients’ current and prospective choice; understanding what is demanded by clinical safety and evidence; understanding the view of the public, as represented through the local authority; and understanding the intentions of commissioners, particularly the clinical commissioning groups that are being established, give a much stronger basis for understanding future configuration decisions.

Stephen Metcalfe: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the campaign group Transplant 2013, which aims to increase the number of people on the organ donor register by 60% by 2013. Will he join me in encouraging people not only to sign up to the register, but to discuss that action with their families, so that when the time comes their whole family is aware of their wishes?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I join my hon. Friend in that. I have signed up to the organ donor register and have discussed that with my wife so that she knows my wishes. I encourage others to do the same. In the last few days, I have been to the retirement event of John Wallwork, who was the first surgeon to undertake a successful heart and lung transplant in this country. He has led the charitable activities on transplant over recent years. I know that he would share our desire for more organs to be available for this vital activity.

Grahame Morris: Has the Secretary of State had an opportunity to pause, reflect and listen to the NHS foundation trusts, particularly North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust, which serves part of my area, given the uncertainties created by the Health and
	Social Care Bill and the difficulties that they are encountering in raising capital for new build and modernisation? In particular, will he indicate what consideration he has given to detailed safeguards?

Mr Speaker: Order. We must have short questions and short answers.

Simon Burns: I appreciate that question, because I understand how important the issue is to the hon. Gentleman. We have had considerable discussions on this matter, which is currently being further discussed by the Department of Health and the Treasury. We hope to reach some decisions shortly, and he will be one of the first to know.

Julian Lewis: How can a consultation process on children’s heart units that includes the best unit in the country outside London, at Southampton general hospital, in only one out of four options and disregards the population of the Isle of Wight completely be anything other than fundamentally flawed?

Simon Burns: As my hon. Friend will know from the debate that we had in the House a few weeks ago, it would be inappropriate for me to comment, because I must in no way be seen to be prejudging the issue. The inquiry and consultation is independent. However, I can say to him that the inquiry is not fixed on determining only four sites if the results of its consultation suggest that there should be more. The decision rests with the inquiry.

Pat McFadden: The Secretary of State will be aware that there has been a tripling of prescriptions for drugs such as Ritalin, or to give it its generic name methylphenidate hydrochloride, in the past decade. He will also know that NICE guidelines state that those drugs should not be prescribed to children under the age of six. Why cannot his Department give a breakdown showing how many of those prescriptions are going to children under the age of six? Will he heed the call from the Association of Educational Psychologists for a review of the growth of the prescription of those powerful psycho-stimulants to very young children?

Paul Burstow: The right hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. We need to ensure that we have the right data to properly understand prescribing practice, so that we can both challenge bad practice and ensure that the NICE guidance is properly followed. I would like to look more closely at his points and then write to him in detail.

David Evennett: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating advisers working for Bexley stop smoking service, who helped more than 1,600 people stop smoking last year? Does the Minister agree that helping people stop smoking should remain an important public health priority?

Anne Milton: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating those who are making efforts locally. As he will be aware, public health services will move to local authorities, and I am sure those efforts will continue.
	Some 80,000 people a year die of smoking-related disease, and 320,000 young people are taking up smoking each year. We must not only help those who are smoking to stop but prevent young people from taking it up.

Kerry McCarthy: The number of patients waiting more than four hours in A and E went up by 76% in the past year, which is an extra 200,000 people. I think we all know what a hellish experience waiting in A and E can be. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is a backward step, and that he ought to take steps to rectify it?

Andrew Lansley: Shortly after the election we took clinical and expert advice that made it very clear that the expectation that 98% of patients should be seen within four hours was not clinically appropriate in some cases,
	so we relaxed the 98% limit to 95%. As it happens, I believe that according to the latest data, between 97% and 97.5% of patients are being seen in under four hours.

Jo Swinson: Hospital admissions for food allergy went up by 500% between 1990 and 2006, and there are 15 million hay fever sufferers, which has a real impact on productivity, so we urgently need better allergy services. When will the Government report on the pilot in the north-west of England of a new model of allergy services?

Andrew Lansley: I fear that I do not know when that will be available, but I will certainly write to the hon. Lady. I have visited the allergy unit at Addenbrooke’s hospital in my constituency, and I know how effective, and indeed cost-effective, such work can be in treating allergies.

Southern Cross Care Homes

Emily Thornberry: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of Southern Cross Care Homes.

Paul Burstow: As the House will be aware, Southern Cross has been working with its landlords and lenders to agree a restructuring process to secure a viable way forward for the future. As I set out to the House on 16 June, the Government have made it clear that our overriding concern is the welfare and safety of the 31,000 residents in Southern Cross’s care, and that we expect all parties to work together to secure a consensual, solvent restructuring of the business that meets their collective responsibility to secure the welfare and care of residents.
	When I last updated the House on 16 June, Southern Cross, its landlords and lenders had the previous day announced an agreement to work through, over a period of four months, arrangements for a consensual, solvent restructuring. Yesterday’s announcement was one step in that ongoing process, and discussions to resolve the remaining steps continue.
	I know that there is concern about what yesterday’s statement might mean, and that residents, families and staff are anxious to know what will happen next. Let me repeat the assurance I have given to House before: whatever the outcome, no one will find themselves homeless or without care. We will not stand by and let that happen. We will continue to work with the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, the Local Government Association, the Care Quality Commission and others to ensure that there is an effective response to any potential disruption to the continuity of care and to ensure that all residents are indeed protected. A consensual restructuring that assures a smooth transition to new arrangements will mean that those contingency arrangements will not be needed. We all want that to happen.
	Let me reassure hon. Members about some of the questions that I know they will have. First, yesterday’s announcement stated that at the end of the restructuring process the Southern Cross corporate entity will cease to exist. That has no effect on the provision of care or the operation of care homes. Southern Cross remains in operation, and will continue to operate all its care homes until any transfer to new operators takes place.
	Secondly, the transfer of care homes to alternative operators will be a managed process that ensures continuity of services. Yesterday’s statement makes it clear that care home staff will transfer on their current terms, and that the service that residents receive should be unaffected by the transfer. All parties involved in the negotiations have given a clear commitment that the continuity of care will be paramount in that process. Local authorities are already working to ensure that they can assist in the smooth transfer of arrangements in respect of homes in their areas. The Department has been working with ADASS and the LGA to support that.
	Thirdly, no transfer will take place without new operators being approved and registered by the CQC. There has been speculation that companies with no experience in
	the care sector will take over the running of homes, but that will not happen. Alternative operators will need to be reputable and experienced companies that can satisfy the CQC that they are capable of delivering high-quality care and of meeting all regulatory standards. The CQC will not drop its standards in ensuring that requirements are met. I understand that each of Southern Cross’s landlords is settling its arrangements regarding which care home operators to work with, which is an essential part of the ongoing discussions. That will cover all landlords, so that there is a clear way forward for all homes.
	Finally, I assure the House that the CQC has been working with Southern Cross landlords and other stakeholders for several months to ensure the smooth transition of services, and that it has processes to deal with re-registration, and to undertake the essential checks that are needed as a priority. It is having ongoing conversations with Southern Cross, landlords and other providers on the timing of applications.
	The Government’s priority is to ensure that the current problems with Southern Cross are resolved and that a sustainable way forward can be secured, but, as the Prime Minister has previously stated to the House, we must all be clear on what future action is taken and draw lessons from what has happened.
	I said earlier that yesterday’s statement from Southern Cross was one step in a process that will be ongoing in the coming weeks and months. Until all future arrangements are settled, Southern Cross will continue to operate and to provide care in all its homes. Only at the end of the process, when all transfer arrangements have been completed, will Southern Cross as an entity cease to exist. By then, all homes will have a clear plan for future operation, and the continuity of care will have been secured. That is the approach that the Department of Health has taken. Officials are in daily contact will all relevant parties. This Government are not sitting back; we are fully engaged.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I thank the Minister for his statement, which was very informative, but he significantly exceeded his time. I will therefore allow the shadow Minister slightly more than her two minutes so that there is equity between the two sides. I emphasise for the future, however, that answers to urgent questions must be of the prescribed length, and the same goes for questions from now on.

Emily Thornberry: I thank the Minister for his response to my urgent question. Yesterday’s Southern Cross announcement that responsibility for managing 752 homes will pass back to the 80 landlords who own them has created a vacuum. I was interested to hear him say that that was part of a managed process because it does not look like that—it has been a source of terrible uncertainty and great anxiety among residents and families. We have had so little information.
	I am grateful for the information that the Minister has given today, but we need much more. Can the Government publish a list of all 80 landlords, or are the rumours correct that some of them have yet to be identified? Yesterday it was further announced that control of 250 of the homes would be handed back to
	the landlords immediately. We need to know which homes they are so that people living in them know who is running their home. Many of these landlords have little or no experience of running care homes. Does he have any information on the intentions of property companies such as London and Regional homes, which owns 90 former Southern Cross homes, or Prestbury, which owns 21?
	I understand that the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services is doing its best to supports its members, who will have a key role in ensuring that the operating companies can provide good quality care and that local authorities also know how to perform financial stress tests to ensure that the new businesses have sound financial models, but what assistance is the Minister giving? Does he intend to provide additional resources to hard-pressed local authorities in order to help them? What advice can he give to local authorities if, for example, the new company is an offshore company? If the Department of Health does not have the expertise to assist ADASS, will he give that organisation access to officials from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, who might be able to provide that assistance?
	Presumably, the new operators taking control of the homes will need to be registered with the Care Quality Commission—the Minister has assured us that that will happen—but given the staff shortages at the CQC will he assure us that the registrations will be completed quickly? The House has heard him guarantee that the new operators will honour the previous terms and conditions of the 44,000 employees, but how does that square with the announcement of 3,000 job losses? Does he know how many homes are likely to close and what the timetable is for such closures? What will happen to the 50 former Southern Cross homes owned by Lloyds properties, which is in administration? What about NHP, which owns 250 former Southern Cross homes and which is at a standstill with its bondholders? These problems must be addressed. We need a home-by-home plan from the landlords, and he must give us that plan. The buck stops with him. Will he now accept his responsibilities?

Paul Burstow: My slightly-longer-than-it-should-have-been answer to the hon. Lady’s question was an attempt to set out as much detail as was possible about the steps being taken to achieve a consensual, solvent restructuring of the business so that the homes can continue to operate. That is what my answer was all about. She asked about the role of the CQC, which, as I said to her, has been working for some months with the landlords to ensure a smooth process of re-registration as new operators are identified to take on the running of individual homes. I also said in response to her initial question that every home will be transferred. There is a plan in place that will lead to all homes being transferred over the next four months. She asked about engagement with BIS. Of course, as part of the ongoing work, the Department of Health is engaging with BIS to ensure that we have the very best advice in dealing with these issues. The Government have been—and remain—fully engaged with the process.

Stephen Dorrell: For the avoidance of doubt, will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government’s policy since the beginning of this
	saga has been motivated by a single and paramount concern—to secure the continued and orderly delivery of care to the right standards to the residents of these homes—and that, in that respect, this Government are operating unchanged precisely the policy operated by their predecessors?

Paul Burstow: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point, which allows me to make another point. The Health and Social Care Bill is currently before this House—Members are enjoying the Committee stage at this very moment—and it contains the very provisions that will allow us to put in place a regime, which currently does not exist, to ensure proper oversight and engagement with those issues from a central Government perspective. The previous Government did not leave such a regime in place, nor did they put in place the necessary tools to allow the Government to do everything that they might want to do and that the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) might like us to do.

Frank Dobson: Does the Minister accept that if any elderly people are moved out of their homes, there will be an increased incidence of death and a reduction in people’s mental and physical health? What measures is he taking to ensure that as few people as possible are moved from those homes?

Paul Burstow: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we are working hard with the landlords, lenders and others to ensure that those risks are minimised, because the trauma of a hasty care home move and a forced closure leads to exactly those consequences. The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has published new guidance for its members to manage those difficult decisions and processes and to minimise that risk as far as humanly possible.

Stewart Jackson: This is not a time for party political point scoring. The House will have been reassured by the Minister’s comments, as will the many residents of Astoria Park Southern Cross home in Park crescent, Peterborough, along with their families. The only point I would make to the Minister is that when the immediate crisis has been resolved, there should be a mechanism to work with key stakeholders such as the Care Quality Commission to understand the lessons of the flawed business model that Southern Cross pursued.

Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is indeed one of the many issues we need to consider as we proceed towards publishing a White Paper next year on social care reform. We have to ask questions about the regulatory framework that existed when that business model was established. We also need to ensure that we have the necessary tools to deal with large care home providers of this sort, where an individual local authority might be unable to cope with the consequences. Those are the issues that we are working with and that we shall continue to work with.

Glenda Jackson: The Minister gave a list of consultations and apparently daily meetings of his officials with care home providers and landlords. The one group that was markedly lacking
	in the process was the residents of the homes and their families. When will they be included in this process? Who will be responsible for informing them of the timeline if there have to be moves, and will they be in a position to object strongly if, for example, an elderly person does not wish to be moved from the home in which they are resident? Who is responsible for informing those people?

Paul Burstow: The first thing to say is that everything I have set out for the House today is about minimising the numbers of closures and moves. It is about ensuring continuity of care and continuing care in existing care homes. However, having said that, I made the point in response to her right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) that there is new guidance for local authorities on how they engage with the residents of care homes and their families, and it is the responsibility of local authorities to do just that.

Andrew Percy: Were it not for my two county councils, information about the two homes in my constituency—Windsor Court in Goole and St Mary’s in Scunthorpe—would not have been forthcoming at all. Given that it has also taken me several weeks to try—unsuccessfully—to get Southern Cross to allow me even to visit their homes, can the Minister give me an assurance that he will do everything he can to ensure that we are given home-specific information as quickly as possible? If such information is not being made available to Members of Parliament, it is probably not being made available to residents or their families.

Paul Burstow: Yes, and I gladly undertake to ensure that if further information needs to be shared during the summer recess, hon. Members in all parts of the House will receive it in a timely fashion, so that they can address their constituents’ concerns.

Hywel Williams: There are 1,772 people in 35 Southern Cross homes in Wales, but I did not hear the Minister refer to them at all in his answer. Where does the buck stop, as far as they are concerned? Is it with Welsh local authorities, with the Welsh Government, or with him, even though this matter is devolved?

Paul Burstow: I have had, and continue to have, contacts with the Ministers responsible for policy in this area in the devolved Administrations, but the legal responsibility for continuity of care from the point of view of the public purse rests with the local authorities. That is where the legal powers sit, and it is where the legal responsibility has to be placed. We are working with the Local Government Association and others to ensure that the local authorities are able to put contingency plans in place.

Ben Gummer: Lombardy Park in my constituency provides residential care for extremely vulnerable young adults with severe learning difficulties. They, and especially their parents and families, are extremely concerned about what is going on. What reassurance can the Minister give them that those residents will be protected and looked after?

Paul Burstow: I understand entirely the point that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members are making on behalf of their constituents. The nature of the reporting of the announcement yesterday, and other announcements before it, is a source of worry for residents, staff and families. I hope that today’s statement will go some way towards giving them some reassurance. Equally, it will not help the successful, solvent restructuring of the business, which will provide that continuity of care, if we have an endless commentary on it. What is important is that the necessary actions are taken, and they are being taken.

Vernon Coaker: Does not the Minister understand that it is not endless commentary that we want from him but some reassurance for residents in these homes? Also, it is not continuity of care that they want, but continuity of the place in which they live. These are not just residential homes; they are places where people live, and they form a valuable part of the community. What reassurance can the Minister give us that this is not only about continuity of care for those people but about their having continuity of residence in the home they live in?

Paul Burstow: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; this is about people’s homes and their futures. That is why the Government have been working to make it abundantly clear to all those involved in the process what their responsibilities are, and what the local authorities’ responsibilities are. We have also made it abundantly clear that in no circumstances will the Government do anything other than ensure the future continuity of care for people. No one will be made homeless, and no one will wind up without the care and support they need.

Greg Mulholland: Considering the real concern in areas around the country, including Leeds, and the clear duty of local authorities in this role, does the Minister agree that it is inappropriate and irresponsible for councils such as Leeds city council to pursue a raft of closures in their own care homes while this problem clearly exists?

Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend tempts me to comment on an individual local authority’s decisions, the details of which I do not have. It seems to me that that is an area that the council in question will have to look at carefully. The key thing has to be that local authorities are responsible for looking at the availability of good quality care home placements in their area and to supply individuals who are funded by the local authority and who need a decent care home with just that.

Anne Begg: I have nine Southern Cross homes in my constituency, and they are sitting on some very expensive real estate. The problem for Southern Cross was that its rents were too high. What negotiations has the Minister undertaken with the landlords to ensure that that problem does not continue and beset the new operators who we hope will take over the running of those facilities?

Paul Burstow: I do not know the particulars of the homes to which the hon. Lady refers, but if she would like to write to me with more details, I will certainly look at that matter. Many of the homes that Southern
	Cross owns have been specifically built and designed to provide residential care for older people, and there is therefore no other purpose for which they could usefully be converted—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	Opposition Members might chunter about that, but that is why a consensual, solvent restructuring is now the best and most likely outcome of the process.

Robert Buckland: The residents, staff and families of the King’s Court home in my constituency will be encouraged by what they have heard today, but will my hon. Friend write to me with all the relevant information about the key issues of continuity and quality of care provision at King’s Court?

Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend is right to bring to my attention, and that of the House, the concerns of his constituents. I certainly hope that the statement I was able to make today is of some reassurance, along with the commitment I made to continue to keep both the House and individual hon. Members informed as this matter goes forward.

Nick Smith: This is the second time this month that this Minister has been dragged to the Dispatch Box to answer urgent questions about Southern Cross. The Government need to get a grip. May we have a ministerial taskforce from across Government to manage and monitor the transfer of homes to landlords? We need to ensure stability and give peace of mind to Southern Cross residents and their relatives.

Paul Burstow: I note that the hon. Gentleman seems to be a bit like a stuck record, repeating the point that he made last time. The reality is that the Government are taking the necessary steps, are exercising their responsibilities correctly and are making others responsible and accountable for discharging their legal responsibilities as well. What the hon. Gentleman left out from his question was any suggestion of what specific powers his Government put in place that would have allowed us to deal with this issue. There are no such powers.

Glyn Davies: Does the Minister feel that there would be value in considering the financial regulation of care homes and the care home sector so that this sort of situation does not occur again in future?

Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that we can learn the necessary lessons about what regulation should exist at the national level and what powers are in place for regulators to intervene in these circumstances. The reality is that the regulatory powers that this Government inherited from the previous Government are next to non-existent. That is one reason why hon. Members have been able to drag Ministers to account, as has been said, before the House. What we have said as a result is that as we work to produce the White Paper, we will address these issues to make sure that we have a system in place.

Dennis Skinner: Another day, another Tory disaster. We have frail, elderly men and women who do not even know what day it is, yet this Minister, because he is so obsessed with the private
	sector, fails to tell us that he is going to restore the cuts to local authorities that would enable them to handle the crisis.

Paul Burstow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He should just reflect on the fact that this company and this business model were established during the 13 years when his party was in office and on the fact that his party did not put in place the necessary regulatory measures that would have allowed anything other than the very measured approach that this Government are taking— working with the lenders and the landlords to ensure a consensual restructuring of this business. That is what the residents of these homes want, and that is what we are doing to make it happen.

James Morris: I recently visited Roxburgh House in Cradley Heath in my constituency, where a number of vulnerable elderly residents are concerned about their future. Does the Minister agree that we need not only to address the continuity of care in those homes now, as he has described, but seriously to review the situation, once this crisis has been managed, to make sure that it does not happen again? Will he outline the steps he will take to ensure that that happens?

Paul Burstow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is exactly what we also need to work on, which is why we are providing in the Health and Social Care Bill the necessary powers for regulations to be made that would allow such a regulatory approach to be developed. During consideration of those ideas in Committee, it was far from clear whether the Opposition believed that this was a worthwhile approach to adopt.

Madeleine Moon: Before entering this House, I was a care standards inspector in Wales. Part of the problem is the fact that we are not willing to pay properly for the appropriate registration and inspection of care homes. One thing that worried me about the Minister’s statement was when he said that the registration of the new management bodies for these homes would be completed quickly. It should not be “quick” registration; it should be thorough and effective registration. May we have an assurance that the registration will indeed be thorough and effective? Secondly, may we have an assurance that the care standards inspectors will not be diverted from carrying on the ongoing inspection of other homes, thus protecting other frail and vulnerable adults in care homes around the country?

Paul Burstow: I said in response to the original question that there would be no relaxation of the standards when it came to the registration of new homes, and that there would be no rush but a smooth transition to the running of the businesses by new operators. There was no suggestion that the process would take place in a rushed way. I urge the hon. Lady to read the record later.
	As for the role of the CQC, we made it clear last year that we would allow it to recruit the necessary staff, and that there would be no limit to its ability to recruit staff whom it felt that it needed in order to do its job.

Andrew George: What other lessons have the Government learned from this case? The new regulatory measures in the Health and Social Care Bill
	are welcome, but if greater proportions of both health and social care are being exposed to this level of speculative capital, do the Government not need to reflect on whether further measures are required?

Paul Burstow: I am keen not to start leaping to lots of conclusions. About 77% of all social care provision in England is already in the private sector. This is not an experiment, but a fact of life that has evolved over the last 20 and 30 years and has been overseen by Administrations of all colours. What we do need to do is ensure that we have effective, proportionate regulation that safeguards the interests of residents who see these homes as their homes, along with robust arrangements on the ground to safeguard good quality.

John Mann: Can the Minister confirm that elderly people could now be forced out of the homes in which they have lived for years and be stuck in homes that are inferior, or are situated many miles from where they live?

Paul Burstow: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has been in the House for a considerable time. He will know that the secret that he appears to be sharing with the House, and with others who are following our proceedings, is not something totally new. He knows that care homes close already, and he knows that, as a consequence, people do face such terrible circumstances. That is why the Government, working with ADASS, have ensured that the necessary arrangements and good practice advice are in place, which is something that his party did not do.

Alison McGovern: Residents of Bebington and the rest of the Wirral are extremely concerned about the Southern Cross experience. Will the Minister say more about the specific lessons that we need to learn from it, given the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday about the wider opening up of public service delivery?

Paul Burstow: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), 77% of adult social care is already in the private sector, and as we said in “A vision for adult social care”, we want a more vibrant, diverse market which includes voluntary sector providers. We want to examine the role of regulation, to ensure that it assists with the management of that market and, fundamentally, to ensure that it protects the rights and best interests of those who use these services.

Mark Durkan: Will the Minister assure me that consultation with the devolved authorities will take account of the different mix of landlords and lenders there? On a wider issue, will he assure the House that the undertakings he has given in respect of older residents will apply, at least equally, to much younger residents who are receiving bespoke care packages for conditions such as acquired brain injuries, often on a different contractual basis and outside the normal Southern Cross business model? Will such people be fully taken care of?

Paul Burstow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, which allows me to deal with an earlier question on the same subject. The answer is absolutely
	yes. The continuity of care will be not just for the benefit of older residents of care homes, but for the benefit of any individual who relies on the services provided by the company.

John McDonnell: I have been raising concerns about the management of Southern Cross in the House since 2007, in early-day motions and Adjournment debates. Despite assurances from the Care Quality Commission and from the company itself, the system resulted in neglect and abuse in my borough, which, at one point, suspended all placements in Southern Cross homes. I therefore view with some scepticism the assurances given today by the commission and participants in the company. Will the Minister be able to empower local authorities to take control of homes if they are threatened with closure and residents may be forcibly moved?

Paul Burstow: The hon. Gentleman has been raising those concerns in the way that he has, and I will certainly look at the points he has raised in the past. Local authorities have certain statutory powers in respect of their ability to respond to the closure of a care home by managing and resourcing that. We have been, and continue to be, in discussion with local authorities on that, so that they are able to respond in the event of a closure. I return to my key point, however, and the key reassurance we have not only from the company, but from the landlords: this is a solvent restructuring of the business, so that the care homes continue to operate and to provide homes for their residents.

Barry Gardiner: It is not only the residents of the Birchwood Grange and Coplands homes in my constituency who are concerned about their future; so, too, are the people who work in those homes. Can the Minister guarantee that the new operators will honour the terms and conditions of those workers, so that they can see that their future is also secure?

Paul Burstow: There is an undertaking that the TUPE regulations would apply: there would be a transfer on the current conditions. That is what all the staff have been told, and I am certainly happy to repeat the undertakings that have been given by those responsible for those undertakings.

Jack Dromey: Shameful speculation brought Southern Cross to its knees, but local authorities will now have a key role to play in rescuing the homes of 31,000 people in a year when, according to Age UK, the social care budget is being cut by 8.4%. What discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Communities and Local Government, because it cannot be right to ask local authorities to accept public responsibility for a private failure and to deny them the necessary resources?

Paul Burstow: As I have made clear, given the current stage of the announcements on this solvent restructuring, we appear to be in a position where the scenario the hon. Gentleman asks about will not come to pass.

Barbara Keeley: There are more than 300 residents in seven Southern Cross care homes in Salford, and their quality of life is
	our primary consideration. What assurance can the Minister give to those residents and their families that future providers will not play for short-term profit, but will truly consider their quality of life? Reassurances will not mean much if a new provider gets into the same business model and same way of carrying on as Southern Cross.

Paul Burstow: The hon. Lady is right. As we move forward and achieve a successful conclusion to this process, we must put in place the necessary measures to ensure that this cannot happen again. We must take a critical look at the regulatory environment in which this particular business model was allowed to grow—a business model that thrived during a boom, but that was predicated on the assumption that there would never again be a bust. There was a bust however, and that is why the company is in this mess.

Brian H Donohoe: The great majority of these homes were given landlords, but the one in my constituency was owned by Southern Cross and the title deeds have been passed to the bank. I have no confidence in the banks doing anything else but selling such deeds for the maximum profit. Does the Minister agree?

Paul Burstow: I would reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point by repeating that we are engaged with not only the landlords, but the lenders too, about all their responsibilities on the fundamental issue of the welfare of the residents of these care homes. We continue to make that point. That is the legal obligation that local authorities have to honour, and we are working with all those parties to make sure that that is what happens.

Lindsay Roy: There are four Southern Cross care homes in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that in terms of care provision people should be treated first as people, not as sources of potential profit?

Paul Burstow: Yes.

Grahame Morris: There seems to be a measure of agreement among Members on both sides of the House about the need for proper regulation, oversight and management of these homes. Will the Minister therefore take the opportunity to dissociate himself from the remarks made and position adopted by the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) on 7 January 2004? He moved an Opposition motion deploring the then Labour Government’s
	“over-prescriptive, expensive and bureaucratic regulation of the care home sector”—[Official Report, 7 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 324.]
	That statement is reminiscent of the neanderthal, neo-Conservative approach adopted by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his remarks on deregulating the banking sector.

Paul Burstow: I am going to stay focused on the welfare and interests of the residents of these homes, and we will have those political debates on another occasion.

Pat McFadden: Just a few weeks ago, I visited Bellevue Court, a home run by Southern Cross in my constituency, where I was told that the home would stay part of the restructured Southern Cross group and that there would be no redundancies. We now find that there is to be no restructured Southern Cross group, so does the Minister understand the scepticism that will be felt by families and staff involved in Southern Cross if the guarantees given a month ago did not last the month?

Paul Burstow: What we have is a process that is working towards that solvent restructuring of the business to ensure that each home is able to be taken over by an operator or a group of operators so that good-quality care can continue to be provided for the people who live there. That is what this process involving the landlords, the lenders and Southern Cross is all about. What we know from the statement made by the company yesterday is that it has given an undertaking for the TUPE transfer of the staff. We also know that the company will be working over the next four months to ensure that smooth transition. As my statement said, the public authorities—the Care Quality Commission and the local authorities—are working with the company to ensure that that happens.

Jim Cunningham: The Minister knows as well as I do that local authorities may have a legal obligation to intervene in this situation but they cannot do that without Government assistance with the resources. It is no good the Minister blaming a previous Labour Government or local authorities; he is passing the buck to local authorities. I thought that Pontius Pilate died 2,000 years ago, but we have just seen his resurrection.

Paul Burstow: What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that there is not a question of funding these homes, because they are not insolvent. The business is not going into administration—it is going through a restructuring—so there is no request for funds and there is no need for those funds in order for local authorities to be able to carry out their current legal duties.

Ann Clwyd: I do not know whether the Minister heard the excellent Radio 4 programme “You and Yours” earlier this week, which included a long discussion on care homes and care in the community. The programme gave the impression that more care home problems are in the pipeline and that we are dealing with Southern Cross today, but several others are in a similar situation. Can he give us any assurances on that point? Will he also examine care provision in the community, because many care companies also provide that service to local authorities and it would be an absolute catastrophe if the same thing were to happen to care in the community?

Paul Burstow: It is for those very reasons that this Government last year set out a vision of reform of social care based on greater personal control and personalisation of the services that people need to sustain them in the community. It is also why we have committed to produce a White Paper that will focus on issues of quality and regulation, and that will bring together the other issues associated with how we reform
	the laws in this country, which have evolved in a piecemeal fashion over the past 60 years and which make the system opaque and hard to navigate. Those are the commitments that we have entered into and will continue to prosecute.

Gordon Banks: The Minister talks about every home being taken over, but it is obvious from his earlier remarks that he expects closures. That is a worry for me, given the two care homes in Tullibody and Crieff in my constituency. Just how many closures are acceptable to him?

Paul Burstow: Closures in their constituency are a concern to any hon. Member, and I suspect that that is why we have made it clear that we have been working with the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services. I am not going to come up with an arbitrary threshold below or above which something is good or bad; we need to focus on the needs of the individuals, which is why I have made it clear, in response to some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, that we now have best practice advice on how such closures are to be managed. That did not exist and was never drafted under the previous Government.

Mark Lazarowicz: The Minister said that he had been in discussions with the devolved Administrations, as I would expect him to be. What assurances can he give the House based on those discussions for residents in constituencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland about their future under the plans he has announced today?

Paul Burstow: The approach is one that I have rehearsed quite clearly today before the House. We as a Department continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations, sharing information about our contact at a national level with the landlords as a landlord committee as well as with individual landlords. If the hon. Gentleman has specific concerns about Scotland, he should contact the Scottish Government, too.

Tony Lloyd: My local authority does not know who the successor landlords are in some of the cases in Manchester. The people I represent do not know who their landlords will be. This most complacent of Ministers ought to be able to come to the House and tell us the answer to this question: does he guarantee that every one of these offshore financial companies will agree to take over the running of these homes? That is what my constituents need to know.

Paul Burstow: What I have told the House is that the process in hand, following the statement made yesterday by Southern Cross, will ensure a smooth transition of every home to a new operator over the next four months.

Bill Esterson: This will be of great concern to many people who live and work in homes that are not run by Southern Cross. Many other people will be affected. The Minister has spoken about regulation and care home standards. Will he bring forward proposals to consider the business regulation
	and can he tell us when he will do that? That is the way to provide reassurance and security for many people who live and work in homes other than the 31,000 in Southern Cross.

Paul Burstow: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has already made statements and commitments about looking at the business model and at why it was thought to be appropriate for this sector.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I met my local authority a few weeks ago to discuss the Southern Cross situation and it was obvious that it was not totally prepared for the complete withdrawal of Southern Cross from the social care market. Will the Minister tell the House whether he has issued or intends to issue guidance to local authorities on how to deal with this situation?

Paul Burstow: It is not a question of trying to write guidance in Whitehall. This is about our engagement with the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services about how directors discharge their statutory responsibilities. Writing guidance does not deal with the immediate changes. We need to ensure that local authorities’ existing legal obligations to ensure continuity of care are properly exercised.

Christopher Leslie: Is it not obvious that if the Government are implementing swingeing cuts in the money they give to local authorities, they in turn will give less money to the care homes, and that this is only the beginning of a set of care home closures that could be catastrophic? Does the Minister seriously believe he can wash his hands of all responsibility?

Paul Burstow: In the spending review last year, the Government took our responsibilities very seriously. As a result, we identified and agreed that by 2014-15 an additional £2 billion would go into social care to support those budgets. We know from the work that has been done by others that with efficiency savings, such as those I was talking about earlier as regards reablement and telecare, that resources are sufficient to sustain the system while we do the necessary work to reform it.

Andrew Gwynne: There are nine Southern Cross homes across Tameside and Stockport and still more in adjacent Manchester. Although some good work might be being done at an individual district level, I am not convinced that much contingency planning is being done across city regions such as Greater Manchester. What encouragement and, more importantly, financial assistance, can the Minister give local authorities to ensure that there is cross-city regional co-operation so that residents are certain of keeping their homes?

Paul Burstow: It really is not a question of financial assistance; it is about the co-ordination of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and the Department’s regional directors of social care, who are working with those colleagues at local authority level, and about making sure that they are co-ordinating their activity with the Care Quality Commission. All those things are happening, have been happening and will continue to
	happen to ensure that we do what the Government are committed to doing—ensuring continuity of care and that people can stay in the homes they are currently in with the knowledge that the Government really are committed to making sure that they have no doubt that they are not going to be thrown out on the streets as a consequence of this business’s restructuring.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Minister of State and to colleagues.

Electricity Market Reform

Christopher Huhne: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on reform of the electricity market. Since privatisation in 1990, our electricity market has served us well, delivering reliable, affordable electricity, but in the years ahead we face unprecedented challenges, which the existing market was not designed to meet. Over the next decade, around a quarter of our existing power stations will close, threatening the security of our electricity supplies. Some £110 billion of investment is needed to replace those plants and to upgrade the grid. That is twice the rate of investment of the last decade and the equivalent of 20 new power stations. At the same time, demand for electricity could double over the next 40 years as the population increases and as we increasingly turn to electricity for heat and transport. We also face ambitious carbon emissions and renewable energy targets as we seek to build a cleaner energy future for Britain and for the world. To achieve our goals, we need to take decisive action now to increase low-carbon electricity generation, including nuclear and renewable energy as well as carbon capture and storage.
	None of these challenges can be met for free. We will have to pay to secure reliable, clean electricity for the future and we cannot ignore the long-term trends in electricity prices. Increases in wholesale costs and the carbon price are likely to lead to higher bills in future, even without factoring in the huge investment in new infrastructure that is needed. It is vital that we put in place market arrangements that deliver this investment as cost-effectively as possible. The current electricity market simply is not up to the job and cannot deliver investment at the scale and pace we need. Without reform, our reserve capacity—the power plants we can call on when demand surges—will fall to uncomfortable levels. We would face a much higher risk of black-outs by the end of this decade and we would also be locked into a worrying reliance on fossil fuel imports, putting us at risk of rising and volatile prices. Consumers could end up paying more.
	That is why I am putting before the House today a series of measures to reform the electricity market, diversifying our generation mix and boosting investment in secure, sustainable and home-grown low-carbon technologies. There are five key elements to our reforms. First, the Chancellor announced in the Budget a new carbon price floor to put a fairer price on carbon, thereby reducing uncertainty for investors and providing a stronger incentive to invest in low-carbon generation now.
	Secondly, we will send a clearer message that low-carbon electricity is a key part of our future energy mix. We will introduce a new system of long-term contracts to remove uncertainty for investors and consumers and to make low-carbon energy more attractive. Contracts for difference will be introduced for all forms of low-carbon generation, lowering the cost of capital and allowing clean technologies with high up-front and low long-run costs to compete fairly against traditional unabated fossil fuels. This will build on the carbon price floor, providing the additional clarity and certainty that investors need.
	Thirdly, we will introduce an emissions performance standard to send a clear regulatory signal about the amount of carbon that new fossil-fuel power stations can emit. This will reinforce the requirement that no new coal-fired power stations are built without carbon capture and storage, while ensuring that vital investment in gas can take place. Carbon capture and storage is a key part of our plan to decarbonise electricity generation. It is the only technology that can potentially reduce emissions from fossil fuel-fired power stations by as much as 90%.
	Fourthly, to ensure security of supply in the future, we will introduce a new contracting framework for capacity, changing the way we secure our back-up electricity. That capacity mechanism could mean centrally procuring capacity that is set aside from the market and used only when needed; or it could mean a market-wide mechanism, in which all providers offering reliable capacity are rewarded. Under both options, we plan to ensure fair and equivalent treatment between all the different ways of accomplishing what we seek—demand response, storage, interconnection with our European partners, and extra generation. Shifting or cutting demand for electricity is likely to be more cost-effective than simply building more and more power plants, and complements our work to drive down demand through energy efficiency measures such as the green deal and smart meters. Fifthly, we will put in place transitional arrangements to ensure that there is no hiatus in investment while the new system is set up, and we will create new institutional arrangements to deliver the reform package.
	Together, the reforms will tackle the immense challenges facing the electricity market. They will put in place the framework to deliver the capacity and demand-side response that we need to guarantee future security of supply. They will encourage investment in proven low-carbon generation technologies, and will give investors confidence that there will be a market for electricity generated with commercial carbon capture and storage—confidence that will drive investment in both demonstration and commercial CCS plants.
	Six energy companies supply around 99% of customers in the UK. Alongside action by Ofgem to improve liquidity, the reforms will boost competition within the market. They will make the UK a magnet for low-carbon investment, generating jobs and growth. That will help energy-intensive industries. However, we are also committed to bringing forward a package of measures to ensure our continued international competitiveness.
	The reforms will achieve our aims at least cost to the consumer, with bills for households and businesses likely to be lower and less volatile over the period to 2030 than if we had left the market as it is. They will enable us to build a flexible, responsive electricity system, powered by a diverse and secure range of low-carbon sources, en route to a cleaner, greener future. The reforms insure us against fossil-fuel price shocks, end 25 years of policy dithering, and will keep the lights on, and bills down.
	Alongside the electricity market reforms, I am also publishing today the renewables road map. For too long, discussion about renewable energy has focused on barriers. Now, for the first time, we have set out a detailed, step-by-step plan to overcome those obstacles. The road map sets out a comprehensive action plan to
	accelerate the UK’s deployment and use of renewable energy. It puts us on the path to increase our renewable energy consumption fourfold by 2020 while driving down the cost over time. Growth on that kind of scale will be challenging, but necessary.
	The road map identifies eight technologies that have the greatest potential for the UK, such as offshore wind, where we have abundant natural resources and already have the world’s largest market. Subject to further value-for-money assessment, the Department is setting aside up to £30 million over the next four years to support technology development programmes to improve the efficiency and reduce the costs of offshore wind. With industry, we are setting up a taskforce to drive the work to achieve cost-competitive offshore wind. The recently published microgeneration strategy also outlines the actions that the Government are taking to tackle the non-financial barriers that could prevent microgeneration from realising its full potential. Together, the renewables road map and the microgeneration strategy, which has already been published, will reduce costs for consumers, and enable mature renewables to compete against other low-carbon technologies in the longer term.
	I am also publishing today the final report of the Ofgem review. The review reaffirms the Government’s commitment to a strong, independent regulator, able to give confidence to investors, protect consumers and help meet our energy and climate targets. The summary of conclusions was published in May; the final report provides further detail on how the Government will seek to strengthen the regulatory framework.
	The package of reforms that I have announced today will yield the biggest transformation of the market since privatisation. They will create an enduring framework for future investment, and will secure our electricity supplies for the future, providing our consumers with the best deal possible, helping us meet our ambitious carbon targets, and putting us at the forefront of low-carbon technological development, ready to lead the world in the next energy revolution. I commend this statement to the House.

Meg Hillier: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. We are pleased that he agrees with his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), about the need for reform. The Government have already sent some signals about the future shape of the UK energy market.
	The Secretary of State should be congratulated on standing up to the fuzzier elements of his party with his U-turn on nuclear, which he no longer happily describes as a “failed technology” but says is an essential part of the UK's getting off the “oil hook”. The Government’s eventual acceptance of the recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change in its fourth carbon budget was largely welcomed by most people, even if his colleague, the Business Secretary, was described as “squirming in his seat like a schoolboy” at the Cabinet meeting which discussed it.
	However, the Government have failed to deliver on many fronts since the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change took office. Recent ill-judged Government intervention in the energy market has already led to a hiatus in energy investment and uncertainty across all
	sectors. The solar feed-in tariffs fiasco destabilised the solar sector and sent shockwaves through other renewable sectors. Companies, including RWE, are considering pulling out of the UK because of the uncertainty caused by the Government in the investment landscape. That was underlined by the Pew Environment Group’s report, which showed that the UK dropped from fifth to 13th in a global ranking of countries for green investment. We have seen a green investment bank failing to deliver the necessary investment now and being criticised by the CBI director general, John Cridland, who warned that the bank
	“certainly won’t work if it needs the Treasury’s permission to blow its nose.”
	There is a question mark over whether the Secretary of State’s proposals will deliver. The track record is not good. We believe that the Government must meet some key tests if reform is to work. A new market needs to be greener and to create certainty for industry, room for innovation in emerging energy solutions, and crucially, a good deal for consumers both as users of energy and as taxpayers, and it must deliver the necessary investment in the UK energy sector for security of supply.
	In the White Paper, we have a mixed bag of measures. There is an emissions performance standard—a policy that the Energy and Climate Change Committee considers, at the level set,
	“would have no material impact and is therefore pointless.”
	I could say rather uncharitably that that sounds a little like a summary of Government green policy. Certainly, it is not popular, and already industry is puzzled about exactly what it will achieve. If we are to have an emissions performance standard, the Secretary of State needs to explain to us why it is any more than green window dressing. How will the transition to carbon capture and storage be accommodated within this measure, when we are still awaiting not only the sign-off on project 1, but the future Treasury and European funding for projects 2, 3 and 4?
	The proposals also include a carbon floor price, although we knew about that because it was announced in the Budget independently of these proposals—a running theme for the Department, which most of the time seems to be run by remote control from 11 Downing street. The Department has only just woken up to the impact that this tax grab on industry and its potential to export businesses and their emissions overseas will have on the UK industrial landscape. Better late than never, but it is catch-up.
	Two measures are being consulted on. A contract for difference will pump public money into supporting more expensive energy production—a mechanism which we hear from the Secretary of State will encourage other users into the market, but with such complex administration, we worry, as do many businesses, that small suppliers and new investors will struggle to keep up. We also see proposals for a capacity mechanism and energy auctions, the devil of which will be in the detail. The right hon. Gentleman should expand on which technologies will deliver most benefit, what the costs to the UK will be, how the consumer will afford it, and how we will avoid expensive stranded assets in a new dash for gas.
	Investors need confidence, certainty and clarity. The White Paper could help, or it could herald an era of overly complex and overlapping measures, paid for by
	the taxpayer, that will lead to higher than necessary energy bills. Customers are currently getting a raw deal, so any change must support the consumer. The existing big six energy companies will undoubtedly need to provide in this era of new energy generation, but we need to free up the suffocating oligopoly that stifles real competition from new energy investors. The prize is driving down the cost of new energy generation and prices and increasing real choice for consumers. The Secretary of State, who has been insouciant in the face of rising energy bills, should stop worrying so much about his next meeting with the big six chief executives and start worrying a bit more about the consumer.
	Will the Secretary of State please tell us exactly when the legislation will come before Parliament and when he expects the reforms to be implemented? We already have the delayed Energy Bill circling Parliament and a renewables road map announced today—he cannot keep stacking up policies like waiting aircraft. I am pleased that he is convening a group to look at decentralised energy, but can he give us more details on that? So far his Department has been rolled over by the Treasury at every turn, so could he tell us what these changes will cost the taxpayer and what he is doing to protect the public from unreasonable price rises? How will the Government decide when to conduct energy auctions and how will he ensure that all players will be able to bid in order to reach this new dream world he talks of? Apart from the now delayed green deal, what is his strategy for reducing energy demand?

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sure that the shadow Secretary of State is bringing her remarks to a close, because she has exceeded her time.

Meg Hillier: We cannot afford the dithering, delay and postponement that has characterised Government policy so far. We want to support and work with the Government to achieve these outcomes, but we need answers on those points from the Secretary of State.

Christopher Huhne: We are certainly having to play catch-up—I make no bones about it—because after 13 years of Labour Government we inherited a situation in which the UK was ranked 25th out of the 27 European Union member states on installed renewables. The hon. Lady talks about the speed and dynamism exhibited by the Opposition when they were in government, but not a single new nuclear power station has been consented to since 1986, so the reality is that the track record of which she boasts is entirely mythological, like some Grecian beast seen far off in the mists that suddenly vanishes.
	We are confident that there will enormous benefits for small suppliers as a result of these changes, because it is precisely the long-term contracts that will encourage new entrants into the market and ensure that they have certainty about price, which they cannot rely on if they do no understand the market as well as the big six. That will make our market more competitive, which is a fundamental way of ensuring that we get a better deal for the consumer in the long run.
	The hon. Lady asked which technologies will benefit more. We are not attempting to pick winners, unlike the Opposition, evidently. We want a level playing field for all low-carbon technologies, because we recognise the
	genuine uncertainties about the development of such technologies. As we learn more about which technologies will be the most effective and have the lowest cost, we will invest more in the winners, and that will be discovered through normal market processes.
	When it comes to consumers, we have been clear about the need to reduce the complexity of tariffs and insist that every energy bill shows the lowest tariff available from the supplier, and we have had a clear review of the retail market from Ofgem. We want greater competition and are encouraging new entrants through all these means, in addition to the support of a 67% increase in the social discount budget, compared with the money set aside under voluntary agreements by the previous Labour Government. We are helping in particular those who most need help with their energy bills, because they are the most vulnerable, and Government Members can be proud of that.
	New legislation will be introduced at the beginning of the next Session, in May 2012. The working group on decentralised energy will attempt to tackle all the different barriers to decentralised energy, ensuring that it is able to play its full part in diversifying our supply. The key to auctioning, which I very much want us to adopt, is that there should be greater certainty about costs so that those who are participating in the auction are able not only to see that they have a reasonable chance of winning but to identify their costs.
	The hon. Lady asked what measures we are taking on the reduction of energy demand. The most significant of those is the pioneering measure in the Energy Bill—the green deal. We are the first of any of the leading G20 countries to introduce this measure, which we continue to maintain is on course for launch in October 2012, when it will be a roaring success.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. A great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but there is heavy pressure on time and I must therefore appeal for single, short supplementary questions without preamble and for comparably pithy replies from the Secretary of State.

Tim Yeo: As the task of attracting huge amounts of new investment into new low-carbon electricity generating capacity is extremely urgent, can the Secretary of State assure us that the passage of the necessary legislation will be a top priority for the Government in the next Session? Will he ensure that there is as much clarity as possible about the levels and manner of operation of the feed-in tariffs, with contracts for difference being available as soon as possible to reassure investors that it is a new, stable and predictable regime?

Christopher Huhne: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are extremely seized of the urgency of getting the legislation through during the second Session and of issuing the contracts, so that they will be on course and we are able—I hope—to issue the first contracts in 2013.

Malcolm Wicks: I will put to one side a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State attacking the Labour Government for being slow to build nuclear
	reactors, which shows a capacity for humour that I admire. Do the Secretary of State and the Department now have contractual details from our gas supply companies, which used not to be the case? That would, first, enable him to assure himself about the security of supply, not least given that we often buy gas on the spot market or in the short term, and secondly, enable his Department to scrutinise those contracts to make sure that when companies increase gas prices they are doing so in ways that are fair to the customer.

Christopher Huhne: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point; he is expert in this area. The Energy Bill, which we hope will achieve Royal Assent in the autumn when we come back from the recess, contains provisions that ensure that we are able to be informed about these measures and ensure greater security of supply. He will have read in the press about long-term arrangements being contracted, for example, between Centrica and the state of Qatar. We have a number of these longer-term arrangements. Security of supply is important in physical terms, and we also think about it in price terms. The 30% increase in gas prices over the past year has been a significant shock to a number of consumers. One of the reasons we want to get to low carbon is to protect the economy and consumers against that sort of shock.

Mr Speaker: I always enjoy reading the Secretary of State’s book, but on the whole I prefer the abridged to the “War and Peace” version.

Tony Baldry: As a Minister in the Department of Energy at the time of the privatisation of the electricity industry, I have watched with concern as a market that had 13 participants at that time has shrunk to just six under Labour. How will my right hon. Friend’s proposals drive competition?

Christopher Huhne: I thank the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly right. The biggest feature of the market is the fact that 99% of British energy consumers are served by just six companies, and we desperately need to increase that number. The arrangements that we are announcing today are designed to bring new entrants into the market by providing certainty on price, because one obstacle that they have is in understanding how the market works. Many of the new entrants will therefore be encouraged to invest.

Tom Greatrex: The Secretary of State referred to the need for a “strong, independent regulator” to protect consumers. Given the store he places by that, is it not time that Ofgem looked again at the practice of door-to-door selling, through which many vulnerable consumers are being ripped off by the big six?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We continue to monitor that issue and are discussing it with Ofgem. We will bring forward any appropriate measures when we have considered the matter.

Charles Walker: Carbon charging is a tax on jobs. Why are we retarding economic recovery by introducing what is in essence a carbon tax on business and job creation?

Christopher Huhne: I do not accept my hon. Friend's analysis. Nick Stern has described the failure to take account of the carbon consequences of our actions as the greatest market failure of all time. Sometimes we have to incorporate the consequences of our actions for the environment into the market decision. That is what we are doing.

Caroline Lucas: Given that electricity market reform will lead to windfall profits for existing nuclear plant of at least £50 million a year and given the rising concerns about fuel poverty, of which the Secretary of State will be aware, will the Government introduce a windfall tax on nuclear and use the revenue to help those living in fuel poverty?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Lady is referring, I think, to the potential impact of the carbon price floor, which will of course begin in 2013 and then rise slowly. There will be no impact of the type that she is suggesting until its introduction. It must be considered alongside all the measures we are introducing to save energy and protect those in fuel poverty.

Anne Main: The Secretary of State will be aware of the amount of green tax that is already put on people’s energy bills. I am puzzled about why his Department will set aside £30 million of taxpayers’ money for a certain technology. Surely if we are encouraging the market, it should be the market that puts up the money and not the taxpayer.

Christopher Huhne: There is a sound argument in economic literature for encouraging early-stage technologies. Many British Governments have done that for many years. Green taxes are much lower than the estimates that have been bandied about recently in the press. We are committed to bringing forward in the annual energy statements our estimate of the overall impact of all our policies—not only the low-carbon policies, but the energy-saving policies—on consumer bills. The last time we did that, it was estimated that in 2020 our policies would add just 1% to consumer bills, and that assumed a world in which gas prices are lower than they are today and in which oil prices are only $80 a barrel, instead of $118 a barrel. If we want to protect British consumers against the vagaries of these markets that are buffeted by events, such as those in Libya and the middle east, we have to move to low-carbon sources of electricity. That is good news for British consumers, not bad.

Adrian Bailey: The Secretary of State has said little about the role of solar energy in future policy development. Representatives of the industry have told me that the Government’s feed-in tariff proposals have effectively decapitated the industry. What discussions has he had with industry representatives to overcome that and promote the industry?

Christopher Huhne: My colleagues and I have had many discussions with the solar industry. The hon. Gentleman should know that nobody installing less than two tennis courts’ worth of solar panels has been in the least bit affected by the scheme announced by the Government whom he supported. For three years, the previous Government also made no allowance for those proposing to install more than two tennis courts’ worth of solar panels. I make no bones about the fact that we need to
	protect the consumer interest. If we had not acted, we would have taken so much money out of the budget that it would have affected not only small-scale solar, but other renewables. It is time to end boom and bust not just in the economy but in solar panels.

Martin Horwood: I will skip my own anti-nuclear preamble and just congratulate the Secretary of State on his plans for an emissions performance standard. Does he agree that that and other parts of his plans will in the end protect consumers from the price shocks associated with fossil fuels?

Christopher Huhne: There is absolutely no doubt; my hon. Friend makes a very good point. Over the past year we have had a 30% increase in the price of gas, which has fed through exactly into consumers' gas prices and into electricity prices, too, because gas is such a significant part of how we generate electricity. By moving more towards low-carbon sources of electricity—renewables and nuclear—we will insulate ourselves against such price shocks. That is good news for the economy, good news for all businesses, whether they are in this area or not, and good news for jobs, and I hope that it will be welcomed in all parts of the House.

Alan Whitehead: Does the Secretary of State agree that a targeted capacity mechanism almost inevitably becomes untargeted as it chases lagging investment? That inevitably also leads to overcapacity, at a high price. Does he accept that a representation market, coupled with interconnection, storage and demand reduction arrangements, goes with the grain of a low-carbon energy economy and the electricity market reform measures that he is proposing? If he does, why is he holding a further consultation on capacity mechanisms outside the time scale of his main proposals? Does he have no idea what a capacity mechanism might look like, and is someone twisting his arm in the whole process?

Mr Speaker: I was not very good at maths at school, but I counted five questions there. I know that the Secretary of State will provide a pithy reply.

Christopher Huhne: There is a clear description in the White Paper of the different models on which we are consulting, and we are clear that there are essentially two families. One is the strategic reserve, which is effectively bought by the Government and released into the market at a clear trigger point, and the other is a wider range of capacity that is bought through a generalised mechanism for the market as a whole. Either of those targets a particular level of spare capacity, because we have to avoid blackouts in future. If the hon. Gentleman reads the detail of the proposals, I think he will find them compelling. We will reach decisions by the end of the year.

Laura Sandys: I welcome this fundamental reform of the electricity market. To what extent do we believe we can attract the supply chain to the renewables sector, and is the Department working closely with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that we see an industrial benefit, not just a carbon benefit?

Christopher Huhne: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and yes, we are doing that. We have an enormous potential market with a lot of expertise, particularly in offshore wind, as she well knows. I had the pleasure of opening in her company what was at the time the largest offshore wind farm, quite near to her constituency. We can have an enormous supply chain, and we have to send out clear signals of our commitment, as we are doing. We are also getting the costs down to £100 per megawatt hour, and we can have an enormous and effective industry.

Albert Owen: We all want to see an affordable, secure and low-carbon supply of electricity. On affordability and price, the Secretary of State will know that people who live in peripheral areas of the United Kingdom pay more for their electricity. Is there anything in the White Paper that can assist them, particularly as those areas produce the electricity in the first place?

Christopher Huhne: That is a good point. One thing that Ofgem is currently examining is the transmission review, and we will have to wait and see. The point that I and a number of other people have been making is that in future, in a world in which electricity will not be generated very close to centres of population—we will no longer be siting power stations in the middle of our cities, like Battersea power station; they may instead be far away from cities, as they will have to be where the wind blows or where the tides are—we will have to reconsider transmission charging to ensure that renewable types of energy are not penalised. That will go for distant communities as well.

Conor Burns: The Secretary of State may be aware of the proposals for a wind park of between 900 MW and 1,200 MW covering some 76 square miles just 10.2 miles off the coast of my constituency. Many people in our area are profoundly concerned about that. Given that the local authorities do not have any role in the process, is he prepared to meet me and my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope), for Poole (Mr Syms) and for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) so that we might discuss it with him?

Christopher Huhne: I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend on the subject. I caution him, however, against being too hostile to what is, after all, potentially a very interesting development that could have considerable benefits not just for the country as a whole but locally. Every single energy source has its detractors, whether it is nuclear, onshore wind turbines, offshore wind turbines, natural gas or fracking. The reality is that we need to find our electricity from somewhere, and that includes offshore wind farms.

Michael Weir: I am very encouraged by the Secretary of State’s response to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) on transmission charges. Does he recognise that such charges are fundamentally discriminatory against renewables in their current form? Will he give an undertaking that, as part of his electricity market reform, he will finally tackle that matter?

Christopher Huhne: That is a responsibility for Ofgem, with which I have had good discussions on the subject. I have made my position very clear—I believe that I am in exactly the same place on this as the hon. Gentleman—and we look forward to Ofgem’s proposals with interest.

Simon Hughes: The introduction of emissions performance standards is a welcome new policy, but may I ask the predictable follow-up question? Will the Secretary of State confirm that coalition Government policy says that nuclear power stations will be built only if there is no public subsidy, which means no greater subsidy for them, irrespective of subsidies that are given to other parts of the energy industry?

Christopher Huhne: I have made it absolutely clear that there is no public subsidy for nuclear. Let me explain exactly what we are saying. At the moment, we have the EU emissions trading scheme, which is designed to encourage low-carbon forms of activity and to discourage high-carbon forms of activity. I do not regard that as a subsidy to nuclear. I do not regard the carbon price floor, which exists to support the EU emissions trading scheme, as a subsidy to nuclear—I do not regard a price guarantee that is designed to get certainty for low-carbon generation as a subsidy to nuclear. There will be no extra subsidy for nuclear.
	The only justification for giving a subsidy to a technology when it is out there in the market is if it is an early-stage, pioneer technology, such as wave or offshore wind, that has not reached full commercialisation. Otherwise, there should be a low-carbon, level playing field right across the board to discourage carbon emissions and to encourage low-carbon activity.

Iain Wright: The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who is on the Treasury Bench, has been kind enough to visit Hartlepool and has seen for himself the huge potential in new nuclear and offshore wind. The statement was good on the analysis of problems, but not so good on providing solutions. What practical, tangible support will the Secretary of State provide to ensure that Hartlepool can realise its vision as the European leader in energy?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman is being slightly unfair, given that our proposal provides precisely the certainly and clarity to investors that will mean a real increase in investment in all of those low-carbon technologies. I very much hope that his constituency benefits from that process.

Sarah Newton: I believe that this reform package could unlock billions of pounds of private sector investment, and that it is critical for our national security and new technology, including marine and deep geothermal energy. What analysis have the Government undertaken to estimate how much money will be unlocked by the reforms?

Christopher Huhne: Ofgem’s overall estimate is that we need new energy infrastructure investment across all energy sources, including gas, of £200 billion. In terms of plant and grid connections alone for electricity, we are talking about £110 billion over the next 10 years. That is roughly double the normal level of energy investment that takes place in this country. That will be a significant source of demand to fuel the recovery, and of extra jobs, and there will be enormous opportunities for growth throughout the country.

Barry Gardiner: Four million families heading for fuel poverty does not constitute affordability; a £200 billion shortfall in infrastructure does not constitute security of supply; and a new dash for gas does not constitute low carbon. The Secretary of State knows, as the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) certainly does, that vertical integration in the big six is the biggest single problem. Why did the Secretary of State not address that in his statement, and when will he do so to break up the monopoly of the big six?

Christopher Huhne: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman’s expertise in this area, but slightly less respect for the passion with which he tries to hold this Government to account. Given that no type of electricity-generating plant can be built in less than 18 months—if I am not entirely incorrect, the Government in power 18 months ago were a Labour Government—the idea that any enormous shortfall in infrastructure investment is down to this Government is far-fetched.

Mark Spencer: Given the Secretary of State’s comments about fluctuations in the price of imported fossil fuels, does he recognise the strategic importance of UK Coal and the market to delivering flexible electricity via carbon capture and storage? Will he undertake to work with the UK coal industry so that it can assist in solving the problems in which we find ourselves?

Christopher Huhne: The ministerial team are committed to bringing on CCS, which will provide a place in the long term for coal to continue to meet our energy needs. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who has responsibility for energy, is meeting representatives from the coal industry tomorrow to discuss precisely this matter.

Ian Lavery: In addition to what has been said about the British deep-mine coal industry, does the Energy Secretary agree that it will play a crucial role in future electricity generation in the UK? If so, what sort of assistance can he give to ensure the survival of the UK coal industry?

Christopher Huhne: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that coal is an important part of our energy mix now and going forward, which is why we have found £1 billion in the comprehensive spending review to fund CCS. Indeed, there has been a substantial increase in deep-mine coal over the past year.

Therese Coffey: My constituents in Suffolk Coastal, which I christened the “green coast” in my maiden speech, will be very happy with the announcement of these reforms. Given those announcements, will the Secretary of State indicate when something such as Sizewell C might be built?

Christopher Huhne: The first of the new power stations is at Hinkley point—construction of the earthworks is already under way—and the others will arrive in fairly short order after that. There will be a further opportunity to consider that in detail during the debate on the national policy statements on Monday.

Jonathan Ashworth: Many of my constituents are understandably angry about increased electricity and gas prices—British Gas is a striking example—so can the Secretary of State guarantee that these reforms will not contribute to increased energy prices in the short to medium term?

Christopher Huhne: It is inevitable that, given that we need the new investment that we have been discussing today, there will be a cost. The energy companies are not the Salvation Army. They do not do things out of altruism; they do them because they are going to reach a rate of return on capital. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman of this: if he looks at the detail in the White Paper, he will see that our proposals will reduce costs to the consumer compared to leaving the market as it is. Central to our ambition is ensuring that we have affordable, low-cost electricity and that we protect British consumers from the vagaries of past years—with the 30% increase in gas prices and a corresponding increase in electricity prices.

Andrew Percy: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the successful Pulse Tidal project in the Humber. Will he assure the House that, as the Government move forward, tidal will remain a key priority for them and that funding will be secured for investment so that that investment does not go overseas?

Christopher Huhne: Tidal power is exciting and has great prospects. We have some enormously important potential sites for tidal stream—for example, the area around the Severn barrage—and I am confident that as the technology progresses it will play an important part in our energy mix.

Mark Tami: In the Secretary of State’s statement, there is one mention of nuclear power, but I do not recall him mentioning it at all when he delivered it. Putting that aside, does he not accept that the industry needs certainty, otherwise there is a danger that the investment will go elsewhere?

Christopher Huhne: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Investors need certainty and clarity, and that is what we are giving them today.

Andrew George: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. On decentralised energy, does he agree, particularly with regard to onshore wind, that the sooner it is enabled, the sooner we can overcome the innate reluctance of many communities to accept it and ensure that they can share in the benefits?

Christopher Huhne: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of community schemes. That message has come clearly from the successful schemes, particularly those north of the border. He is absolutely right to point out that when the community has a clear stake in a proposal, it is much more likely to back it.

William Bain: The United Nations environment programme has found that investment in large-scale renewables in China reached $49 billion last year, whereas in Europe it fell by 22% to $35 billion. Where will the Secretary of State find the capital to drive the expansion in the offshore wind sector, given that the green investment bank is having its borrowing and lending powers so badly restricted by the Treasury?

Christopher Huhne: The achievements in the low-carbon sector in China are quite extraordinary, and the hon. Gentleman has cited one of them. However, I do not agree that we will have a problem with capital shortage. If we provide the certainty and clarity that we are providing, we will find the investment. It is also very noticeable—I hope that he has noticed this—that the green investment bank will begin to borrow and lend from 2015, and that the biggest investment in many of our renewables programmes will come in the latter part of this decade, so the green investment bank will be there in time to help.

Glyn Davies: Many of us believe that there is currently an over-dependence on onshore wind to achieve the Government’s low-carbon targets. The mid-Wales uplands are under threat of being desecrated through industrialisation by a plethora of multiple wind farms. Does the Secretary of State agree that cumulative impact and high landscape value should be material planning considerations in deciding on onshore wind projects?

Christopher Huhne: I accept the position that my hon. Friend has taken on the particular proposals that affect his area. All I would say is that by comparison with other renewable technologies, onshore wind is a tested, effective and affordable technology. It is the lowest-cost renewable technology available in these islands, and it produces electricity at a similar cost to first-of-a-kind nuclear power stations. However, I return to what I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) about energy sources. It so happens that every energy source has its detractors. As I view wind turbines as beautiful, I hope that we will not find opposition all over the country to what is a cheap and effective source of energy for our consumers.

Paul Flynn: Post Fukushima, many of our competitor countries in Europe are planning nuclear-free futures, mainly because of the increased cost that Fukushima has created, by making nuclear reactors uninsurable, with a possible bill of hundreds of billions of pounds afterwards. Is it not irresponsible to go ahead with the plans in Britain without any reassessment of cost? Weightman is not allowed to consider that. Can the Minister really say that he is going ahead without subsidy? He seemed to be saying today, “We’re going to have subsidies for all nuclear and new nuclear, but call them something else.”

Christopher Huhne: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong on that. We are setting out a framework to discourage high-carbon activities and encourage low-carbon activities. We do not make any technological judgment about how those particular things proceed. The hon. Gentleman is right that Germany, Italy and Japan have all announced either moratoriums or pauses for new nuclear construction. However, it would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that costs will necessarily increase in those circumstances, because obviously if there is less demand for some of the components in nuclear power stations, the normal economics would tell us that their price might fall, so the process might become cheaper. However, I can assure him that we will bear safety in mind first and foremost. That is what I asked Mike Weightman to
	address, and that is what he has answered in the interim report and will answer in the final report.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I wonder whether the Secretary of State is aware that there has been a proposal in my constituency for a tidal barrage for the last 20 years. Is there anything in the proposals that will finally allow such developments to compete on a level playing field with proposals for wind?

Christopher Huhne: That is one of the technologies that we are taking forward in the renewables road map, and I want to make progress on it. We have a considerable resource in that technology, which we want to develop further right the way around the United Kingdom’s sea frontier.

Mark Durkan: Whatever other concerns the Secretary of State might try to refute in relation to the carbon floor price, he cannot dispute the fact that if levied in Northern Ireland, it would have a hugely distorting impact on the single electricity market—which is based in statute north and south in Ireland, with its own regulatory framework—and remove the very certainty and clarity for investors, the need for which he has said his reforms are addressing. Does he recognise not only that the carbon floor price will harm consumers and industry in Ireland, but that distorting the single electricity market at this stage would damage the prospect of this island harnessing offshore energy from Ireland in the future?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the electricity market arrangements in Northern Ireland are quite distinct from those in England, Scotland and Wales. There is effectively a single market between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and we need to be aware of and respect that. I gather that discussions are ongoing at official level and elsewhere to ensure that there are no unintended consequences of the changes that we introduce.

Jo Swinson: Feed-in tariffs are proving effective in encouraging people to generate their own renewable energy. Will the Secretary of State look at how they could also be used to encourage the use of negawatts—that is, energy saved—to give people an additional cash incentive to ensure that their homes are warm and snug, and well insulated so that they do not waste energy?

Christopher Huhne: We have been clear in the White Paper on electricity market reform published today that we want to encourage demand-side response. My hon. Friend makes the good point that, in an ideal world, we would move beyond the temporary switching off of demand in order to close the gap between demand and supply and adopt the practice of paying people to reduce overall demand at all times. We are working on that, and we show awareness of that matter in the White Paper. This is a holy grail, however, and we have not yet found a way of doing that without opening up the possibility of wholesale fraud and other problems, but it is a good, interesting idea and we would like to look at it further.

Points of Order

John Denham: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 7 March, the Prime Minister stood with the chairman of Bombardier and said:
	“I am bringing the Cabinet to Derby today with one purpose—to do everything we can to help businesses in the region create the jobs and growth on which the future of our economy depends.”
	People are now asking whether the Prime Minister already knew that his Government were planning to give the Thameslink order to Germany, costing thousands of jobs, so I asked the Prime Minister in a written question when he knew the outcome of the procurement. His reply, tabled yesterday, does not answer the question, but refers to an irrelevant answer to a different question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett). Is there anything that you can do, Mr Speaker, to get the Prime Minister to give a factual answer to a factual question, or should we assume that he has something to hide?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for giving me advance notice of it. He came into the House long before I did; he is a seasoned campaigner and a man of great wisdom and experience. He will therefore know that I am not responsible—I say this with some relief—for anything that the Prime Minister might say or do. That is well beyond my ken. The right hon. Gentleman has placed his concerns on the record, and I am sure that he will find other methods, through the use of the Order Paper and other parliamentary processes, of further registering his views and probing the Prime Minister.

Anne Main: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking your guidance because we are due to have an Opposition day debate tomorrow whose title is as yet totally unspecified. That means that members of the public who wish to attend the debate will have had no notice of the subject, and hon. Members who might wish to prepare for the debate have no cognisance of it. I understand that 48 hours notice is normally given of such debates and their titles. May we seek your guidance on why that courtesy is not being extended to us?

Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: If it is on the same matter, I call Mr Oliver Heald.

Oliver Heald: Thank you, Mr Speaker. For some hours, the PoliticsHome website has been reporting details of the wording of tomorrow’s motion, yet when I went to inquire where the motion was, I found a queue of Members doing the same thing and we were told that it had not yet been tabled. Should not the rule be that the motion is tabled here first and then put into the media? Is it not time that the recommendation of the Wright Committee that 48 hours notice should always be given was referred to the Procedure Committee?

Mr Speaker: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said in support of the point of order raised by the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). There is inevitably
	a certain amount of letting off steam in points of order, but the simple factual position is that this is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman asked a normative question about what the rule should be. That is a matter for the House to decide; I have no power in these matters. It is commonplace for some notice to be given, but that is not an unfailing practice. It is for the Member in charge of the motion to decide on the timing of its tabling, in keeping with such rules of the House as apply, but there has been no breach of order in this case. The concern has been registered and will have been heard—

Oliver Heald: rose—

Mr Speaker: In a moment. The hon. Gentleman has had one bite; he must not be too greedy. I call Mr John McDonnell.

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. A letter has gone from the Ministry of Justice today to chief probation officers around the country informing them that the core functions of probation services are to be put out to tender. This is the wholesale privatisation of probation services—possibly the most significant change in probation practice in this country since the service’s foundation. There has been no ministerial statement or written ministerial statement, so may I through you, Mr Speaker, suggest to the Government that this matter is of such import that there should have been at least a written ministerial statement on it?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for advance notice of it. The short answer to the query he raised and the concern he expressed is that I have not been informed of any oral statement on this matter today. I had understood—and, at the time of speaking, I do understand—that there will be a written ministerial statement from the Ministry of Justice about public bodies, but I have not seen the contents of it. I say what I do with some care because it is my best understanding at the moment. If I am wrong or if the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied, he can return to the matter. I am sure that he will in any case find other ways of pursuing it.

William Cash: rose—

Mr Speaker: No day would be complete without a point of order from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). We will come to him; I am saving him up; we look forward to hearing him.

John McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The only statement that has come out today has been the consultation paper on reforms proposed in the Public Bodies Bill. The probation service is not covered by that Bill or by the paper itself. I want to emphasise again, through you, Mr Speaker, that this is a significant matter that warrants a ministerial statement of some sort.

Mr Speaker: There are other ways of pursuing the matter. The hon. Gentleman can do so through the use of the Order Paper. I add that we have business questions on Thursday, so if there is no route before then that satisfies the hon. Gentleman, I will look out for him on that occasion.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the Opposition motion is likely to be
	“That this House believes that it is in the public interest for Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation to withdraw their bid for BSkyB”,
	would it be in order for the shadow Leader of the House to rise and tell us whether that is the case, as doing so would be a courtesy to the House?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a persistent and indefatigable fellow, but I need to say two things to him. First, that is not the way we go about the confirmation of business in this place. Secondly, although it is extraordinarily generous of the hon. Gentleman to refer me to the PoliticsHome website, I am not among those who browse it with any frequency. [Interruption.] “Very wise” says a Government Whip on the Treasury Bench; I suppose Government Whips know about these matters. I think it was the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) who volunteered that helpful advice to me.

William Cash: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have the problems with the Division bells in Portcullis House been sorted out? Would you be good enough to look into the matter, Mr Speaker, as last night a number of problems led to significant delay. Has it been sorted out; is the root cause being investigated?

Mr Speaker: I was not aware that there was a problem; I am now. I hope that there is not still a problem. I have known the hon. Gentleman for at least 13 or 14 years and the thought that he might, as a result of some failure, miss a vote is something that saddens me. Whether the same would be said of him by the Government Whips is a matter of legitimate speculation and conjecture. We will leave it there for today.

National Debt Cap

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Sajid Javid: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to set a legal cap on the amount of outstanding net Government debt as a percentage of gross domestic product; and for connected purposes.
	Before I came to this House, I worked as an international bond trader and structurer. One of my roles was to advise Governments that had gone bust. The Governments of Mexico in 1994, Thailand and Indonesia in 1997, Russia in 1998 and Argentina in 2001 believed that investors had an insatiable appetite for their bonds, regardless of their ability to pay. The consequences were devastating.
	For the benefit of Members who might be tempted to write off sovereign defaults as a developing world problem, let me cite Iceland, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and—very soon, perhaps—Spain and Italy. Had we not had a change of Government 14 months ago, we could have been engulfed in a sovereign debt crisis of our own. Although the coalition Government have restored fiscal probity, it would have been far better if we had not been taken to the brink in the first place. That is why I believe that one idea that we could usefully pinch from our American friends is that of a debt ceiling. Despite the political debate that America’s debt ceiling has provoked in Washington—indeed, precisely because of it—Britain should set a cap on its net national debt as a percentage of GDP.
	As in the United States, net public debt has soared in the United Kingdom over the past decade, rising from £312 billion to £920 billion, or from 31% of GDP to 60%. Of course, some of that was due to fiscal stabilisers resulting from the recent financial crisis, but most of it was due to a failure of government. Instead of trying to find solutions to long-term challenges to the public finances, the previous Government took the easy way out, believing that the answer to every problem was to spend more money.
	Had that excessive public spending led to hugely improved public services, perhaps the previous Government could have been forgiven, but in many cases it made things worse rather than better. Under the previous Government, welfare spending increased from £149 billion to £218 billion, yet the number of workless households increased from 3.7 million to 3.9 million. Under the previous Government, health spending increased from £58 billion to £117 billion, yet England shamefully lags behind virtually every other European country for cancer and stroke survival rates. Under the previous Government, education spending increased from £50 billion to £87 billion, yet, according to the OECD’s world rankings, over the past decade Britain fell from seventh in the world for reading to 25th, from seventh in the world for maths to 27th, and from fourth in the world for science to 16th. In short, under the previous Government Britain has had Scandinavian levels of public spending but Mediterranean levels of service. Such an attitude to excessive debt was not only economically wrong, but morally corrupt. Politicians have no right to pass the buck to the younger generation by ducking the tough decisions now. Why should our children pay for our mistakes?
	Britain would not be the only country in Europe to adopt legal fiscal constraints. Germany passed a debt brake law in 2009 to cap the federal deficit at a conservative 0.35% of GDP by 2016. Switzerland also has a debt brake, and France’s lower house voted just last month to pursue a similar idea. According to the International Monetary Fund, as many as 80 countries now operate fiscal rules, whereas just seven operated them in 1990. Some Governments, however, are determined to learn the hard way that the markets will impose a limit on state borrowing, just as they do on individuals and companies. The recent bail-outs of Greece, Ireland and Portugal show what happens when Governments ignore that fundamental truth, and act as though investors had no choice but to buy their bonds. Clearly, market discipline is not enough to hold back reckless state spending. By the time the market itself says no, it is too late.
	Despite the Government’s efforts, Britain’s inherited economic problem is such that it will take at least another four years to eliminate the structural budget deficit. As a result, net national debt will peak at 71% of GDP in 2014. The coalition Government have not shied from tough decisions and have embarked on a major programme of public sector reforms, but what is to stop a future Government reverting to unrestrained borrowing? Thankfully we do not live in a one-party state, and it is possible that one day we may have a Government who are less economically literate than the current one; so why do we not make it harder for a future Government to create a mess in the first place? A debt cap is no guarantee against fiscal irresponsibility, but it will certainly make it harder for politicians to rely on their favourite ruse of “Buy now, pay later”.
	Although my Bill would leave it to the Treasury to set the cap level, I think that fixing it at about 40% of GDP would be appropriate. There is nothing particularly significant about that figure, but, given my 20 years of experience, I believe it would be a sensible place at which to begin the debate.
	The start date for the cap would have to be set at some point in the future, perhaps 10 years from now, but that would in no way diminish the effectiveness of the cap. Indeed, knowing the goal a decade in advance would provide the Government with a clear and consistent downward target.
	Ideally, the cap should include off-balance sheet liabilities such as unfunded public sector pensions and private finance initiative schemes. Following the creation of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, this Government are leading the way in trying to assess the amount of such “hidden” public debt. Indeed, tomorrow the OBR is set to publish the whole of Government accounts for the first time in Britain’s history, and that is likely to estimate such debt at over £l trillion. Once a suitable method to measure such liabilities becomes more commonly accepted, perhaps they, too, can be included in a revised cap.
	Without proper enforcement, good intentions count for little, so the OBR should be given the task of monitoring compliance with the cap. Should the cap be violated, the Government would be given a fixed period to remedy the situation. Failing that, the Government would be forced, by law, to repurchase Government bonds early, thereby reducing net outstanding debt. Nevertheless, critics will say that faced with the prospect of cutting spending or raising the cap, a Government
	will always opt for the latter, but my Bill would require the Government of the day to make their case openly in Parliament and to explain to the nation as a whole exactly why they believe they need to borrow more. There will need to be a vote, and MPs will have to explain their decision to their constituents. For any Government conscious of their duty, let alone their popularity, the disincentive to doing this should not be underestimated. My Bill will, at the very minimum, force a national conversation where previously there has been only stealth and obfuscation.
	Nation states have rightly used public debt as a fiscal tool for centuries. Britain’s debt has been both far higher and far lower than it is now, but it has never been more unsustainable. I believe that restoring Britain’s fiscal rectitude is the calling of this generation of politicians, and the time to start is now.

John Mann: It is always a joy to listen to new Members coming up with old ideas, or old Members coming up with new ideas, and here we have a new Member eagerly supported by many of the new generation of Tory MPs—a generation who fundamentally hate the concept of the public sector and Government. The tradition they—

David Ruffley: There is no one behind you, John!

John Mann: Well, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) is one of the few who would be able to pray in aid the key point I am about to make about previous debates. I am sure the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) would love to pray in aid some of the past figures of the right, such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill, but unfortunately for him there is only one politician whom he can pray in aid on the proposition of capping the national debt, and he is a Labour politician; or rather, he was a Labour politician but he switched sides. His son was once the MP for Bassetlaw, and his name was MacDonald: Ramsay MacDonald. At that time, a failure to understand basic economics led to the formation of a national Government and to John Maynard Keynes having to rescue those who were stuck in the failed logic of the gold standard and everything that emanated from that. A similar constraint on Government action was rejected between 1980 and 1984 by Ronald Reagan, who in fact did exactly the opposite. Such a constraint was also rejected by Margaret Thatcher between 1979 and the end of the 1980s. Although she did many things wrong, she did not accept this fundamental concept and she failed to shrink the state.
	Such a constraint was also rejected by Winston Churchill, and that example is perhaps the most relevant. Can we imagine being sat here in 1939? Luckily, Keynes had by then won the argument against Ramsay MacDonald and the Labour traitors who formed the national Government on the flexibility of economic policy. Hitler was determined to invade this country, as well as the rest of Europe, and we were required to spend to defend ourselves. Can we imagine our being hamstrung by a requirement to change legislation to allow this country to spend money from the public purse in order, rightly, to defend ourselves? Now we see the shaking of heads
	by those on the Government Benches, because the argument has been lost—I will demonstrate precisely why they have lost the intellectual and economic argument.
	In 1999, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) decided to pay off some of the national debt. Which bits of it was he paying off? He was paying off national debt from the Napoleonic wars, which went back nearly 200 years, to a time when, again, there was a national crisis and a wise Government determined that this country should spend to defend itself. So, we see the naivety of the would-be Reaganites and Thatcherites, who are, in fact, the MacDonaldites. They would restrict our ability to act at times of crisis on the economy, they would reject the wisdom of Keynes and they would opt purely for the logic that Milton Friedman adopted and tried out in 1973 in Chile—the people there were the only ones after Ramsay MacDonald to attempt this economic philosophy. That is what the motion proposes.
	I have learned over the years in this place that it is sometimes best that these arguments are had and then left to rest, particularly as we reach the summer recess. This is such an unwise proposition that I shall resist even the temptation of allowing a vote on it and, thus, giving it credibility.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Sajid Javid, Mr Frank Field, Mark Garnier, Matthew Hancock, Joseph Johnson, Mr David Laws, Andrea Leadsom, Jesse Norman, Claire Perry, Mr John Redwood, Mr David Ruffley and Nicholas Soames present the Bill.
	Sajid Javid accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January 2012 and to be printed (Bill 218).

Sir Malcolm Jack KCB

George Young: I beg to move,
	That Mr Speaker be requested to convey to Sir Malcolm Jack KCB, on his retirement from the office of Clerk of this House, the House’s gratitude for his long and distinguished career, for his wise contribution to the development of the procedure of the House and to close understanding among the Parliaments of the Commonwealth, for his leadership and professionalism in the discharge of his duties as chief executive of the House, and for the courteous and helpful advice always given to individual honourable Members.
	I hope that we will now move on to more consensual territory.
	It is a pleasure to move the motion and lead the tributes today to Sir Malcolm Jack. A hundred years ago, my great-grandfather, Sir Courtenay Ilbert, was Clerk of the House. Among the tributes that were paid to him as he stood down in 1921—coincidentally, the last time the House applauded the services of an outgoing Clerk during a coalition Government—was this, from Asquith,:
	“he has sat in that chair, the duties of which are more arduous, more responsible, and more delicate than the world outside knows, and I am sure that I am expressing the universal opinion of the House when I say that he has worthily maintained its great traditions”.—[Official Report, 15 March 1921; Vol. 139, c. 1258.]
	Those words ring as true today as they did then.
	Sir Malcolm was appointed Clerk and chief executive of the House in 2006 and has seen the House administration through a period of great change. The recommendations of Sir Kevin Tebbit’s review of the management and services of the House were challenging, but Sir Malcolm saw immediately that half measures would not do: the challenges had to be tackled immediately and it was his persuasion and energy that ensured that considerable structural change took place that streamlined the House’s governance, reduced the number of House Departments and resulted in a more efficient service for Members and indeed members of the public.
	That reflected the administrative half of the twin responsibilities that we give the Clerk of the House. The ancient role of the Clerk is to be our principal constitutional adviser and our chief expert on all aspects of our business. I say “the ancient role”, but more recent events have shown the importance of the Clerk’s independence. Sir Malcolm’s grave warnings that provisions in the Parliamentary Standards Bill in 2009 might lead to judicial incursion into matters that are exclusively ours, and his measured advocacy of an alternative course, obliged the then Government to withdraw that whole part of the Bill.
	“Parliamentary privilege” is an often misunderstood term but we all understand how important it is to our right of free speech. Sir Malcolm is acknowledged as a great authority on such matters and I have no doubt that his expertise in all the procedures of this House will be on show in the eagerly awaited 24th edition of “Erskine May”, of which he is the editor and which will be officially published tomorrow—yours, Mr Speaker, for just £267.
	Sir Malcolm’s family and background have been cosmopolitan. He was educated in Hong Kong before university in the UK. He is one of the few of our Clerks
	who speak Cantonese. He cuts an elegant figure, no doubt partly attributable to the many lengths he swims almost every day at 4 Millbank. Indeed, when he was Clerk of the Agriculture Committee he was known as “the most elegant man ever to don Wellington boots”.
	He has been a great champion of our links with overseas Parliaments, particularly within the Commonwealth and especially in Africa. He deserves our thanks for the links that he has nurtured with many African Parliaments and the support and guidance he has given them, which I know they have much appreciated, most recently in the seminars in Malawi last year and Tanzania earlier this year. About Sir Malcolm’s appearance in a Masai warrior’s robe at the Commonwealth parliamentary conference in Nairobi last year perhaps little should be said, but I am told that photographic proof is available for a modest fee.
	By profession Sir Malcolm is a philosopher as well as a Clerk and has published learned books and articles on philosophical subjects. He has put this into practice here. When he was a Clerk in the Table Office, a Member trapped his hand in a filing cabinet. Others present in the room looked on with interest. “Can’t you do something?” the unfortunate Member asked, “I’m in physical pain.” Malcolm decided to be helpful, “Ah,” he said, “metaphysical pain is far worse.”
	He is also credited with what his colleagues know as “Jack’s law”, which states that mentioning the name of a person ensures the appearance of that person and, moreover, the speed of the appearance is in direct proportion to how disparagingly the person has been described.
	Sir Malcolm’s “Who’s Who” entry gives a remarkable list of recreations, including,
	“thinking for oneself…empires adrift, Johnsoniana”—
	Samuel, I think, rather than Boris—
	“oriental ceramics, Africana, escaping southwards.”
	We rejoice with Sir Malcolm that escaping southwards will soon be much easier. We thank him for his 44 years’ devoted service to the House, culminating in five years as Clerk of the House, and we send him and his partner Robert Borsje our warmest good wishes for the future.

Hilary Benn: It is with great pleasure that I rise to support this motion on behalf of the Opposition, although it is a pity that Sir Malcolm is not here, for obscure reasons of tradition, to savour our praise. Oppositions do, from time to time, create a bit of trouble for the Government of the day, and in doing so we are always very helpfully advised by the Clerk of the House, who equally helpfully advises the Government on how to avoid the trouble. That is the skill of the Clerk—to offer guidance without fear or favour in the interests of our democracy—and that is exactly what Sir Malcolm has done with resolute distinction and great wisdom.
	In addition to the achievements that the Leader of the House has recalled, Sir Malcolm has seen this place in and through turmoil—no more so than two years ago, but however bad that was, some of his predecessors have had a much tougher time. At the end of the 1500s, the Clerk had his own expenses troubles: he was so out of pocket that Members had to pass round the hat to
	pay his salary. In 1723, Thomas Ward made some extremely disobliging comments about King George I and for his pains was whipped around Palace Yard—the ancient equivalent of appearing before one of our more vigorous Select Committees. Later that century, Lucas Kenn was attacked in Cornhill, losing his wig and hat in the process, by a group who had just given evidence to a House Committee and wanted their documents back. I am glad to say that since then the pen and the tongue have replaced the fist and the whip but they are just as sharp in their own way.
	Having joined the Commons Clerks Department straight from university in 1967, Sir Malcolm has seen it all—from the Agriculture Committee, as we have just heard, to the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, and from Ways and Means to the House of Commons Commission. Sir Malcolm’s perspicacity and that watchful eye of his, peering over the table—that is what I will always recall—will have escaped few Members’ notice over the past 44 years. As we have heard, he has been very keen to share our experience with parliamentarians across the Commonwealth and the world, and to learn from them. His influence may be greater even than we suppose. I am advised that when attending the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in Arusha in 2009, he was being driven by the Clerk of the Kenyan Parliament from Nairobi—an extremely gruelling journey—when in the middle of nowhere they had a flat tyre. While gloomily contemplating the problem, they were astonished by the sudden appearance of a priest, who had presumably been summoned telepathically by Sir Malcolm. As well as providing spiritual guidance, the priest managed to change the tyre and they continued their journey.
	Throughout his career, as well as giving sound advice and service, Sir Malcolm has found time to write widely on subjects far removed from Parliament. He has written about the 18th-century politician and philosopher Bernard Mandeville, who first talked about the division of labour, and about Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, who once wrote a political periodical entitled the “Nonsense of Common-Sense”, which I am sure Sir Malcolm will have heard from hon. Members of the House from time to time. Yet, from his seat at the desk he has offered quiet, wise and courageous advice—never more so than in the wake of the expenses crisis, as the Leader of the House has recalled. At that time, he reminded us all that our freedoms as a Parliament—for that is what privilege is for—should not be cast aside in haste. Those freedoms are far too precious for that. I hope that he will cast an eye over the draft Bill on parliamentary privilege when it finally makes its appearance.
	In his letter informing the House of his intention to step down, Sir Malcolm said that
	“members’...duties…will necessarily ruffle and disturb the peace of consensus”.
	I hope that we will promise Sir Malcom that we will all do our best to heed that advice, aided and abetted by the new edition of “Erskine May” that we are all eagerly anticipating.
	I am sure that the House will agree with what Sir Malcolm said recently:
	“One of the best features of the job is that I never know exactly what the day will bring”.
	That is one of the joys of this place, and I am sure that the same will be true of his retirement. It is with great
	and heartfelt thanks that, on behalf of the Opposition, I join the Leader of the House in offering our best wishes to Sir Malcolm and his partner, Robert Borsje, for their future.

Alan Haselhurst: I have had the honour of serving in this House for a high proportion of the years in which our retiring Clerk has served, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to attest to the enormous work that he has done at various levels, giving sagacious and good-humoured advice throughout. His knowledge of this place is such that we should perhaps hope that his memoirs will be confined to the next edition of “Erskine May”, rather than branching out into any other form.
	I pay special tribute to Sir Malcolm for the devotion that he has shown to a matter beyond the immediate needs of the House: the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. To take up what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, Sir Malcolm has understood, during his time as Clerk, that Parliament is seen very much as a central feature of the whole Commonwealth parliamentary structure. He has put himself out at all times to ensure that the Clerks’ department and hon. Members are actively engaged in discussions and liaison with other parliamentary associations across the Commonwealth. That is an important part of parliamentary activity, though not, perhaps, the one most noticed by the public. He has played a great role in strengthening those parliamentary connections, and we should be grateful to him for that. It is fitting that towards the climax of his parliamentary career he will, alongside you, Mr Speaker, play a pivotal part in the centennial conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in London later this month.

Jack Straw: I apologise to the House for departing as soon as I have spoken, but I am due to give the Gareth Williams memorial lecture in Gray’s Inn at 6 o’clock; I shall be late.
	The Clerks of the House are the guardians of our procedure and—with you, Mr Speaker—our rights and privileges. Happily, we take the work of the Clerks for granted, their encyclopaedic knowledge as a given, and their efficiency as the norm. We would, however, soon notice the difference if the Clerks did not excel at their work. None has excelled more in his dedication, commitment and skill than Sir Malcolm Jack, Clerk since 2006, to whom we pay tribute this afternoon.
	I have been in this place for long enough, but Malcolm had been a Clerk for 12 years before I arrived. In the 32 years in which our services have coincided, I have come to know Malcolm well, and to regard him as a friend. The Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House were sensitive enough not to mention which fool was Sir Malcolm’s adversary over the Parliamentary Standards Bill in 2009, but it was I. I had, in good faith, judged necessary a modest little provision putting a gloss on that most sacred of rights, parliamentary privilege, to ensure that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority could work better.
	As many will recall, Malcolm weighed in tenaciously with objections. Even with the usual assistance available to Ministers to enable them to take the intellectual high ground in debate—heavy whipping, arm-twisting, promises to recalcitrants of overseas trips—my task was doomed to failure. To every argument that I advanced from the Dispatch Box, the advice of the Clerk of the House was quoted back at me as holy writ. It was a hopeless task. The result of the Division was Straw, Jack 247; Jack, Malcolm 250. He won, I lost and the Bill, it must be said, was much better for it. If ever Malcolm had needed, which he did not, an expression of complete confidence in him by the House, that was it.
	I know, too, from my many friends among the staff in the House that Malcolm is held in enormous respect and affection by them. He has carried his duties with a light touch and ready humour. I have great pleasure in endorsing the motion of gratitude to Sir Malcolm, and I offer him my deep personal thanks and every good wish in his retirement.

Alan Beith: It is a pleasure to offer, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, support for the motion in recognition of the work of Sir Malcolm Jack. Forty-four years is an extraordinarily long time in the service of the House. I always find it worrying when people who have been here longer than I have leave, for one reason or another. Like policemen getting younger, it is a reminder of things one does not want to know about.
	Sir Malcolm arrived here from a background which was, in those days, not conventional, and all the better for that. He had been educated at school in Hong Kong and attended Liverpool university where he got a first class degree. It is a model not sufficiently followed, perhaps, even in subsequent years and one to which we should return to draw a wide breadth of talent into the service of the House. It was certainly not a mistake to recruit that Liverpool university graduate—quite the contrary. It was a very wise move.
	In the course of Sir Malcolm’s time here, it has been a pleasure to be able to talk to a scholar of achievement and repute, which marks him out, and that has been of great benefit to us. But the line in the motion that most appeals to me is the reference to his “courteous and helpful advice”. If the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) self-deprecatingly described himself as the fool who started the argument with Sir Malcolm Jack, I was the slightly wiser man who sought his advice. It was the Justice Committee which asked the Clerk of the House to give us evidence, took that evidence from him, published it in a report and made it available to the House so that it had a powerful effect on the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. I think we all acknowledge how important it was to protect the rights of our constituents that are embodied in that unhelpful phrase, “parliamentary privilege”, a subject on which he has a surpassing knowledge.
	While supplying that “courteous and helpful advice” and doing the things that Clerks traditionally do, Sir Malcolm was continuing a process by which the Clerk of the House became the chief executive of the House—a pretty challenging process and one in which he has helped us significantly. It is a process that will
	continue under his distinguished successor, and its difficulties and challenges must not be underestimated. The fact that Sir Malcolm coped well with those is a mark of the respect in which we now hold him and is a further and particularly compelling reason why we should thank him for his service to the House and wish him much happiness, enjoyment and scholarship in the future.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who was a member of the House of Commons Commission for 17 years. I did not get anywhere near his record. I served only 10 years on the Commission.
	It is a pleasure to catch the Speaker’s eye because this is a parliamentary occasion, as well as a memorable occasion. It is memorable because Sir Malcolm Jack has served 44 years in the House and by my reckoning he has served through seven Prime Ministers, one of them, Harold Wilson, being a retread. As was touched on by the Leader of the House, Sir Malcolm also served as Clerk to the Agriculture Committee—wellingtons and all—for eight years. If anything shows assiduity, devotion to duty and attachment to the House, it is serving that Committee for such a lengthy period. He moved on to become Clerk of Supply and Clerk of Standing Committee. He also served the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform from 2002 to 2003. If he believes in déjà vu, he has only to close his eyes, open them again and see that House of Lords abolition or reform, however one wants to describe it, is back on the agenda.
	Sir Malcolm has managed to combine his duties in the House with being a philosopher, a scholar and a writer, whose books had not only to be written but to be researched. I surmise that the research was as arduous as the writing. One of his works which will be worth looking at is the saga, “Corruption and Progress: the eighteenth-century debate”. It should be read again by all the cognoscenti in our present era. They may find that, if I may quote French, plus ça change, plus ça reste le même: the more it changes, the more it stays the same. Many of those in the news at present might have a good look at that. Sir Malcolm would understand more than anyone that progress and change are not the same.
	On reading the various publications of Sir Malcolm, I came across a book entitled “The Turkish Embassy Letters of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu.” My ears pricked up and, I went chasing down to the library. I thought journalists from the tabloid newspapers might have got there before me, but I am happy to say that they did not. The book is a very interesting account of what went on at the end of the 1600s and into the 1700s and is well worth the read.
	That book mentions Sir Malcolm’s vocation as an independent scholar. His book on Lisbon published in 2007 is certainly also worth a read for those who love Portugal, as he does, and its beautiful capital city. I note, as did the Leader of the House, that in “Who’s Who” one of Sir Malcolm’s recreations is listed as “escaping southwards”. I imagine there are many in the fourth estate who might look to him for advice on how they might make an early escape southwards.
	Forty-four years of service. Can one understand that? Sir Malcolm was in the House under the Speakership of Horace Maybray King, who was in the Chair when I first came to the House in the 1950s. Sir Malcolm sat on the House of Commons Commission for almost five years. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to the fact that Sir Malcolm moved from Clerk of the House to become its first chief executive. He understood that the Commission is an intrinsic part of the workings of Parliament under your chairmanship, Mr Speaker. Its work is, for the most part, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will understand, unsung and unnoticed, but none the less invaluable.
	As the Leader of the House said, Sir Malcolm saw the need for the changes recommended by Sir Kevin Tebbit and he brought them about. His work might have been unnoticed until the famous expenses scandal. As a member of the Commission he became a focal point for us all. He gave us his advice wisely and discreetly. He saw the House through turbulent times and as the Leader of the House said, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) graciously recalled, Sir Malcolm played a major part in steering the House away from losing its privileges under the Parliamentary Standards Bill. With Sir Malcolm’s help, the Leader of the House and I hijacked the Bill and made it a better Bill in the interests of Parliament. So he used that time of crisis as a time of opportunity.
	Sir Malcolm was also accounting officer with overall responsibility for the House’s finances, resource accounting and internal controls. All these had a great impact on this sovereign Parliament for a sovereign nation.
	In the letter that Sir Malcolm wrote to the Speaker, which was mentioned by the shadow Leader of the House, he stated:
	“Unwarranted and unfounded criticism from whatever quarter should not deflect Members from their duties which will necessarily ruffle and disturb the peace of consensus.”
	Sir Malcolm was one of those unsung Officers serving the House of Commons Commission who was instrumental in assisting the House to make a much-needed transition.
	While talking about transition, I hope that you, Mr Speaker, will not mind my saying that Sir Malcolm had to lead the transition from one Speaker to another mid-Session. I can testify from my own experience and observation to the friendship and camaraderie he extended to you, Sir, and the advice he offered on so many new areas, which I am sure you appreciated and valued. That is an important and significant point that ought to be made. The Leader of the House referred to the 24th edition of “Erskine May”. Although it is to be published tomorrow, a copy is already available in the Library and has been read many times by many Members in the short time it has been there.
	I will end my remarks with a quotation from the famous poet Andrew Marvell, though it might be out of context:
	“He nothing common did or mean
	Upon that memorable scene”.
	We should make it “this memorable scene”. Sir Malcolm retires from the House with his honours thick upon him, and deservedly so. I salute him, as does the House and Parliament, and as should the nation.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) will imitate the quality of “Erskine May”, a copy of which he is clutching, but I feel modestly confident that he will not seek to equal its length.

William Cash: I am extremely grateful, Mr Speaker, and note that the latest edition of “Erskine May”, the 24th, produced by Sir Malcolm Jack, is dedicated to you:
	“To The Right Honourable John Bercow MP, Speaker of the House of Commons, and to the Lord Speaker, Speakers and Presiding Officers of the Commonwealth Parliaments, on whom fall the great responsibilities of guardianship of the parliamentary system.”
	In the words of Maine’s “Ancient Law”, justice is to be found in the interstices of procedure, so it is a proper reflection on your role that Sir Malcolm makes that dedication in this excellent book, which I am glad to point out is somewhat shorter than previous editions. I have had occasion in the past to read out certain passages, for example in relation to the Maastricht treaty, to remind Members exactly of their responsibilities, but I do not need to do so on this auspicious occasion, and nor would I wish to.
	The remarks that have been made about Sir Malcolm, whom I have known since I first became involved in the processes of the House in 1967, are that he is a man of enormous integrity, a great scholar and a purveyor of the wisest advice, based on his knowledge of philosophy and history. He has been a remarkable Clerk and has been in our service. One thing I recall most specifically about his great career is the fact that he has been a persistent defender of the sovereignty of this House. The case mentioned by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) in his fulsome tribute occurred in adversarial circumstances but demonstrates that those involved realised upon reflection that the advice Sir Malcolm gave was of such quality that it needed to be followed by a successful vote, which shows that we owe him a great debt. Questions of parliamentary privilege are not merely esoteric—the expression is greatly misunderstood—but relate, as others have said, to the defence of the rights of those whom we represent.
	Furthermore, Back Benchers rely heavily on the advice of the Clerk, and I have had reason to be deeply grateful for the wise and impartial advice that Sir Malcolm has given periodically on great matters of parliamentary and constitutional importance. I have no doubt whatever that his successor, Mr Robert Rogers, will follow in his footsteps and that we will have the advantage of his wise advice as well.
	In conclusion, I want to put on record my appreciation—shared no doubt by many other Back Benchers—for the tremendous work that Sir Malcolm has done. It is enormously important that we, as Back Benchers, have access to impartial and wise advice, particularly against the blandishments, manoeuvrings and machinations of the usual channels, the Whips. I have experienced more than my reasonable share of that in the 27 years that I have had the honour of being in this place, but I have always had the most tremendous help from those like Sir Malcolm, and from him in particular.

Frank Doran: I am delighted to have the opportunity to add my thoughts on Sir Malcolm Jack and his career to those that have already been expressed. Like many Members, when I arrived in this place I had no idea who was who or how it was run, and I stayed that way for many years, but Malcolm Jack always stood out as someone I recognised. The Leader of the House has referred to his dignified bearing, and I first became aware of him as a much younger Clerk, when I was an even younger Member. He clearly stood out as someone of importance, even though I did not know what position he held; that was the impression he gave. I got to know him much better when I became Chair of the Administration Committee and, subsequently, a member of the House of Commons Commission. This place produces many exceptional people, but Malcolm Jack is particularly exceptional. Many colleagues have commented on the advice he has given regularly to the Commission, often in difficult circumstances, and how valuable it is.
	In trying to pull together a picture of Malcolm Jack, I picked up one or two things from various political websites. I found an interesting description in a column following an appearance Dr Jack made before the Liaison Committee last year. He was described as
	‘the grandest panjandrum in the palace. He is so clever that he makes David “Two Brains” Willetts look like a village simpleton. Friends call him “Three Brains”, or at least they should. Dr Jack appeared in his full outfit, including a tailcoat and gigantic comedy white tie. He looked like a brilliant scientist winkled out of his lab in order to accept a Nobel prize.’
	I see that philosopher’s frown every time he is thinking, particularly when chewing over the difficult issues that might have led that reporter to think that of him.
	I want to concentrate on two aspects of Malcolm Jack that stand out in my experiences of him. The first is that he has always been available, as many have said, and not just to Members or important commissioners and holders of grand positions, but to his staff. I had many discussions with him through the crisis that we all dealt with. I know of no Clerk, with the exception of those in the 1500s who could be flayed in New Palace Yard if they got things wrong, as the shadow Leader of the House mentioned, who has had to deal with such challenges. In virtually every discussion I had with him one of his key concerns was the effect that the crisis was having on the morale of the staff. He protected his staff, many of whom are paid much less than they would be outside this building, and was always available to them as much as he was to anyone else. He understood the loyalty they felt to this place and that they were severely damaged by the crisis. We thought that we were the ones who were damaged, but many others were damaged in that process. His concern about the impact on the staff was extremely important, and he knew that the reputation of the House was extremely important to them.
	The second area where I think he distinguished himself, and which has also been highlighted by the Leader of the House, is in his attempt to modernise this place, which I think has been very important. The Leader of the House mentioned the Tebbit report. I remember asking a senior Officer of the House, shortly after becoming Chair of the Administration Committee, how decisions were made about repairs and improvement to the building. To summarise, the answer was basically,
	“It’s what your Committee wants, Sir.” There is a culture of deference in this place, although I think it has reduced over the past four or five years. It is important that it reduces, because we do not make the right decisions when deference is the motivation behind the advice that is given to Committees and others in this place. In the conversations that I have had with Malcolm Jack, he recognised that.
	Malcolm Jack was not the initiator of the Tebbit report—the Commission had ordered it before his appointment—but he made sure, as the Leader of the House pointed out, that it was implemented very speedily. This House is a better place for that. It is much more structured; there is planning. For example, six or seven years ago there was no long-term strategy for the maintenance of this building; now there is a 25-year strategy with five-yearly reviews. Simple things like that make a difference to this place, and Malcolm Jack has been responsible for seeing that through.
	I had a brief discussion with Malcolm when I heard about his retirement—he may not thank me for saying this—and we were talking about his successor. I believe quite strongly that one day the position of the Clerk and that of the chief executive will be separated and we will see much more outside influence. Malcolm is probably the exception to the rule, but 44 years in one place is not the best training to run that place. One needs outside influences and to know what is happening in the outside world. I think he understands that. He may be a bridge between the old-style Clerk and the new-style chief executive of the future.
	There are lots of things that I wanted to say, but what we all want to do is to offer him and his partner all best wishes for the future. I know that he has a lot of plans to do more writing; “Erskine May” is not the limit of the opportunities that he sees for himself. I add my congratulations to him on the service that he has provided to this House and wish him and his partner all the best for the future.

Bernard Jenkin: Sir Malcolm Jack is proof that the United Kingdom’s largely unwritten constitution is not only unwritten but living. The mark that he leaves on his office and on the institution of the Clerks in this House is perhaps, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) suggested, a lessening of their deference, not only to Members but in relation to their position in the British constitution. The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), referred to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, which challenged the supremacy and privileges of this House. I believe that Sir Malcolm was innovative in his approach in taking on a more public role than his predecessors by being a less deferential part of the British constitution.
	That is a reminder of the fact that this House and Parliament does not just depend on what we say about ourselves, and on what judges say about us and the laws that we make; we depend, as an institution, for our sovereignty, on the institution of the Clerks themselves. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North say that the role of chief executive should be separated from that of Clerk of the House. Part of the strength of the institution of the Clerks is that they
	combine the two elements. Every aspect of this House is subordinate to the work that the House does, which is supervised by the person who ensures that our procedures are fit for purpose.
	I pay tribute to Sir Malcolm for the innovations that he has brought to the British constitution and for the way that he has strengthened this House throughout a very difficult period.

George Howarth: As the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is leaving the Chamber, I want to say that I am very pleased that he has a new copy of “Erskine May”. On our occasional bus journeys in the morning, I look forward to him to reading out what will no doubt by then be a heavily annotated version of his copy of “Erskine May” to the general enlightenment of myself and the other passengers on the bus. That volume will indeed be a continuing tribute to the Clerk of the House, Sir Malcolm Jack.
	A great deal has been said about Sir Malcolm Jack and the public role that he has played in shaping the way that this House has operated in recent years. I certainly endorse all of that. The quality that he had was also, at the same time, an old-fashioned one, in that he was always available to provide very wise advice to any Member who wanted to use the procedures of the House for a good purpose. I am personally grateful to him for having done so on many occasions—in a quiet way, but guiding one through the procedures as they applied in the particular circumstances. I like to think that the wisdom and great scholarship that has been attested to is a testament to the time that he spent at Liverpool university; so many people who went to that university share those qualities.
	Let me conclude by saying that I hope that he and his partner enjoy a long, happy and fulfilling retirement.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved, nemine contra dicente,
	That Mr Speaker be requested to convey to Sir Malcolm Jack KCB, on his retirement from the office of Clerk of this House, the House’s gratitude for his long and distinguished career, for his wise contribution to the development of the procedure of the House and to close understanding among the Parliaments of the Commonwealth, for his leadership and professionalism in the discharge of his duties as chief executive of the House, and for the courteous and helpful advice always given to individual honourable Members.

Alison Seabeck: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I rise to seek your guidance on an incident that occurred in Westminster Hall earlier today. We were in the middle of a debate discussing poverty and housing dereliction, and the Minister, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell), described the contributions of hon. Members as bringing sob stories to the debate. Interestingly, we queried it at the time. We have a Hansard copy of the debate in which the word “sob” has been removed. Clearly, that is very politically sensitive, because we felt that it was somewhat insulting. Is there any way, Mr Speaker, that you or your good offices could check whether we had misheard the Minister? Having watched back the video, I have to say that it does not look like he mispronounced any word. If so, how do we find out how that word was removed and who authorised its removal, because clearly the record would appear not to be factually correct?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. The reality, as some Members will be aware, is that the Editor of Hansard does have some discretion in the compilation of the Official Report, and marginal adjustments can be made, although ordinarily one does not expect adjustments to be made which change the meaning of what has been said. I think the safest thing that I can say to the hon. Lady on this occasion is that I will look into the matter and revert to her when I have done so.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Sports Grounds Safety Authority Act 2011
	Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Act 2011
	Wreck Removal Convention Act 2011
	Police (Detention and Bail) Act 2011

Public Bodies Bill [Lords]

[Relevant documents: The Fifth Report from the Public Administration Select Committee, Smaller Government: Shrinking the Quango State, HC 537, and the Government response, Cm  8044 .]
	Second Reading

Mr Speaker: I inform the House that the amendment has been selected. To move the Second Reading, I call the extremely patient Minister, Mr Francis Maude.

Francis Maude: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	It seems almost unseemly to move a Second Reading in the wake of the august tributes to the retiring Clerk of the House. It is actually quite appropriate, because many of the tributes to Sir Malcolm, which I heartily endorse, talked about his understanding of and commitment to the powers of this House. Central to those powers is the House’s power and right to hold the Executive to account. That is essentially what the Bill is about. It will enlarge the scope of the state—the public realm—which this House and Parliament can hold to account, and reduce the scope of quangos and non-departmental public bodies and the range of public state entities that are not accountable to a democratic authority. That is long overdue. The Bill will put in place a mechanism that will enable this Government and future Governments to change the landscape of those bodies without the need for separate primary legislation whenever anything is sought to be done.
	The public are right to expect a system in which Ministers are accountable for what the Government do and for how taxpayers’ money is spent. For too long, there has been the proliferation of a complex network of public bodies, which has worked against that expectation by blurring the lines of accountability and disguising inefficiency and duplication in the delivery of public services. It is for that reason that last summer the Government conducted an intensive review of public bodies, which was stimulated and led by the Cabinet Office but conducted by the relevant Departments across Whitehall. It was the most comprehensive interrogation of the role of such bodies for decades.
	We subjected each body to four tests. The first was existential and asked whether the body needed to exist and whether its functions needed to be carried out.

Joan Walley: When the review was carried out, what environmental appraisal was there of the proposals?

Francis Maude: In conducting the reviews, the Departments will have considered the environmental implications. One example that I am about to refer to would have carried no environmental implications. Obviously, the Departments would have considered the environmental implications in every case. Before any action is taken under the powers in the Bill, there will be an opportunity for further detailed scrutiny.
	The first question was whether the functions had to be carried out at all. In some cases, the answer was no. We decided fairly rapidly that the Government probably
	did not need an independent non-departmental public body to deliberate on the purchase of wine for the Government. That is of course an important function that must be carried out properly, but there does not need to be an NDPB to do it.

Alan Beith: One body that is widely thought to be necessary and desirable is a chief coroner to provide leadership to the coronial profession. It would be possible to create that post without creating the kind of elaborate body that the Government are rightly anxious about by designating an existing coroner to have that leadership role with just a small amount of additional support.

Francis Maude: We rather agree with what my right hon. Friend says. There is concern that a whole new apparatus and bureaucracy should not be set up, with all the associated costs, which the previous Government’s plans would have entailed. However, we understand the concern that not proceeding with the establishment of a chief coroner would look insensitive, and would perhaps be insensitive in the circumstances. I will say a word later about the detail of our plans in respect of that office.

Kevan Jones: What has changed from when the Minister was in opposition, when he voted for the chief coroner and his party’s Front-Benchers spoke in favour of it in Committee? The Minister spoke about cost and there is an issue about cost. Why has he not yet published what savings will be made by not having a chief coroner? If, as he recognises, certain functions have to be carried out in the Ministry of Justice, at what cost will those functions be carried out?

Francis Maude: It will cost very much less. The set-up costs for the office of the chief coroner, as planned under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, would have been £10.9 million and there would have been running costs of £6.6 million a year. I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what has changed. A Government have come to office and inherited the biggest budget deficit in the developed world. We had to take urgent steps to control and eradicate the deficit. As a result of that, he will be glad to know, despite having a budget deficit roughly the same size as that of Greece, we now enjoy interest rates roughly the same as Germany’s.

Kevan Jones: The Conservative central office spin is wearing a bit thin. Will the Minister break down the costs? The other place was disputing the one-off set-up cost. Included in the £6 million a year is nearly £1 million for contingency, which is 20% of the supposed running costs. Would it not help to justify his arguments if a detailed breakdown was printed, which the Ministry of Justice has singly failed to do and he has not done today?

Francis Maude: I will, of course, ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor hears what the hon. Gentleman has said. There will be plenty of opportunities, such as at Question Time once a month, for the hon. Gentleman to ask those questions of Ministers at the Ministry of Justice.

Kevan Jones: You don’t know.

Francis Maude: Do I have every single detail about every single body contained in the proposals? No I do not. I can answer in detail on the bodies that are within the responsibility of the Cabinet Office. This is an enabling Bill, which will enable the House of Commons and the House of Lords to scrutinise the detail of the proposals in each case. There will be plenty of opportunity for that to be done in the case of the office of the chief coroner, because the Government will introduce amendments in Committee, where the issue can be explored in great detail. I am confident that all the questions that are springing up can be answered at that stage.

Bob Ainsworth: The Minister is trying to evade collective responsibility for the decisions that the Government are taking. He is also ignoring the fact that there was widespread consultation on this matter and that it was supported by the Opposition. It was found that, almost without exception, nobody disagreed with this. This is far and away the cheapest and most effective way of getting consistency into the inquest service. The cost of the inconsistency is both human and monetary. The costs that the Minister talks about need to be offset against the costs of the judicial reviews that are brought regularly against the current system. He knows that this is the most preposterous U-turn. The suggestion that the coronial service should be accountable to this House is also a disgrace. It should be independent. It can therefore only answer to one of its own. That is why the creation of the office of chief coroner is so necessary.

Francis Maude: The office of chief coroner will be brought into existence. It will not be set up in the elaborate way and with the extensive additional costs embodied in the proposals of the previous Government. The office will exist. The functions, to the extent that they are needed, will be exercised in a way that is affordable in the current circumstances. If the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have considerable respect, is really suggesting that we should spend this amount of extra money on this matter, he needs to tell the House what he would cut to enable that to happen.

Charlie Elphicke: Surely the concern is not just over the amazingly expensive offices that many quangos like to equip themselves with, but over the amount of pay that they receive. People at the UK Film Council get more than £150,000 a year, the British Waterways chief executive gets £230,000, and a similar amount goes to the chief executive of the Dover Harbour Board, dare I mention it? Surely we should ensure that the cost of each individual is reduced to a sensible amount.

Francis Maude: One of the benefits brought about by this Government is to make all that more transparent. We have exposed for scrutiny by the public and the House what those high salaries are, and it is right that we should do so. They may be completely justified in many cases, but they ought to be justified and scrutinised, so I make no apology for introducing that degree of transparency.

Helen Goodman: While the right hon. Gentleman is talking about salaries, perhaps he will address the abolition of the Agricultural Wages
	Board, which protects the incomes of the poorest people in the countryside. Its abolition will mean that those workers lose more than £150 a week in sick pay straight away. How can he defend that?

Francis Maude: I justify it on the basis that the Government of the hon. Lady’s party introduced a minimum wage, which was voted through by the House. The Agricultural Wages Board was introduced at a time when there was no national minimum wage. It now exists, and we take the view that an independent body with the AWB’s powers no longer needs to exist.

Andrew George: The point about the Agricultural Wages Board is not just that it pins down a minimum wage for agricultural workers but that there are six scales of pay and other protections for those workers, who have a very weak voice in the labour market. The Minister talks about transparency, but the rural voice will be lost unless transparent decisions are made in the Chamber about each of the bodies involved, including the Rural Advocate, who speaks up on behalf of the most vulnerable in rural communities.

Francis Maude: On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Rural Advocate, it seems to me that rural areas are very well represented in this House. It seems odd that a separate body should be created to be a rural advocate, because it seems to me that it is the duty of Members of Parliament to be the advocate for their constituents. There are many very effective advocates of rural residents and constituents.
	The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs proposes to consult on the AWB in the autumn. It will be part of a wider consultation package on the future of the agricultural wages committees and the agricultural dwelling house advisory committees.

Sam Gyimah: I fear that the Minister is being led down the path of discussing every public body covered in the Bill. Is it not the case that the public bodies identified in the Government’s review form a significant layer of state control, and one from which people can only feel distant? Bringing accountability to bear on that layer is the most important aspect of the Bill for him to focus on.

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. These bodies are rarely discussed in the House, and that is part of the problem that we are seeking to deal with. Unless there is a compelling reason why a state function should be carried out by a body that is independent of any democratic accountability, the presumption should be that it is accountable. That is the test that we apply.

Rehman Chishti: rose —

Francis Maude: I will give way to my hon. Friend, and then I will make progress. I am conscious that this is going to end up being a rather short debate on Second Reading of a large Bill, and I know that a lot of Members want to contribute.

Rehman Chishti: I am grateful to the Minister. Between 2007 and 2008, public sector organisations spent about £4 million on hiring political consultants to lobby Government, which is totally unacceptable. What steps are being taken to ensure that it does not happen again?

Francis Maude: The guidance has been tightened up considerably. Taxpayers find it quite offensive that a body that is not democratically accountable should use taxpayers’ money, in some cases, to hire lobbyists to lobby Government to give it more taxpayers’ money. We have taken urgent steps to ensure that that does not recur.

Alun Cairns: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Francis Maude: I will give way once more; then I really will need to make progress.

Alun Cairns: I am very grateful. I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend about lobbyists, but does he also accept the danger that many public bodies will start to employ internal lobbyists directly rather than commissioning and contracting them? That would also be a waste of money.

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend’s point simply amplifies the case for the presumption that we are instituting in the Bill that there needs to be a really compelling case for a state function being carried out in a way that is not accountable. That is the purpose of the Bill.

Charlie Elphicke: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend will forgive me, but I really do need to make progress. A great many Members wish to contribute to the debate.
	Our first test of a body was the existential test—does its function need to be carried out at all? If, as in most cases, the body’s functions were deemed necessary, we then sought to establish whether the functions should be carried out independently. We had three tests. If a body carries out a highly technical activity, if it is required to be politically impartial or if it needs to be able to act independently to establish or measure facts, it is right for it to remain outside direct ministerial or other democratic accountability. That is clearly the case with bodies such as the new Office for Budget Responsibility, Ofgem and many others.
	Any body that does not meet any of those tests will either be brought back into a Department, where it can be held accountable to the House through a Minister, or devolved to local authorities. In both cases there will be democratic accountability. Or in some cases, a body’s functions could be carried out outside the state altogether in the private or voluntary sectors. We went through an extensive process to determine the outcome of the review.
	The first task was simply to establish how many quangos there were and what they did. It may sound absurd, but it was and remains incredibly difficult to get firm information on that. Many do not publish accounts, there is no central list and there are many different types of quango with different statuses. The official list of
	non-departmental public bodies contains 679 bodies, excluding those in Northern Ireland, but that does not include non-ministerial departments, Government-owned public corporations or trading funds. Our review covered 901 bodies, and we believe, but cannot be certain, that that is the true extent of the landscape. I stress that departmental Executive agencies were not within the review’s scope. They are directly controlled by Ministers, who are accountable to Parliament for what they do.
	At the end of that review, I announced our proposals to the House on 14 October last year. They were that 481 of the bodies should be substantially reformed, including 192 abolished entirely and a further 118 merged. Since that announcement we have concluded consideration of a number of other bodies, and I can tell the House that the current total is that 495 bodies will be reformed, including 200 abolished and 120 others merged into 59 successor bodies. We have moved quickly to implement that programme, and I am pleased to tell the House that 45 bodies had been abolished by the end of April this year. Overall, we expect to make administrative savings—I stress that they are administrative—of £2.6 billion from public bodies over the spending review period. That money will be better spent on protecting public sector jobs and on front-line services.

Kevan Jones: rose —

Francis Maude: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am going to make progress. I have given way a great deal, and I do not want this speech to go on too long. I am sure that is a sentiment that the House will support.
	I note that the previous Government’s intention, set out in 2009, was to abolish 120 bodies, saving the conveniently round number of £500 million. Yet in the six months following that announcement, they did not even manage to abolish half of them—a clear demonstration that, as ever, they had a better knack for the headline than for the hard work of implementing what had been promised.
	Where public bodies have been retained, they will be subject to a process of rigorous triennial review, to ensure that they remain fit for purpose, that the need is there, and that the justification for them remaining independent is still valid. Far too often, bodies have been created and left well beyond the time when they are needed, partly because there has been no means to reform or disband them—any such change would have required primary legislation, time for which is, as we know, at a premium in the House.
	The Government’s response to the Select Committee on Public Administration report outlined the principles of that review process, and I look forward to giving further details to the House in due course. The review process for individual bodies will be led by the responsible Minister in each case, and co-ordinated and supported by the Cabinet Office.
	The House will be aware that the Bill was brought from another place, where it has received substantial scrutiny, resulting in a number of important amendments. I thank noble Lords for their constructive engagement in this process, which has helped the Government to produce an even more coherent and well-structured Bill—it was fairly coherent and well-structured to begin with. I hope that it will command the support of this House and the confidence of the public. I pay particular
	tribute to my noble Friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach for his skilful stewardship of the Bill in the other place.
	The Bill is centred on a series of order-making powers that enable Ministers to make changes to public bodies through secondary legislation, subject to the approval of Parliament. That mechanism creates a coherent and efficient procedure for reform, while properly giving Parliament the ability to scrutinise both the principle and the detail of the proposals.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will the Minister give way?

Francis Maude: I will give way once, if the intervention is on scrutiny.

Mark Lazarowicz: Although there is no doubt nothing wrong with dealing with some of those bodies by order, can the right hon. Gentleman not understand the concerns many of us have about the fact that bodies such as the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission can simply be merged by order, when there were hours, days or weeks of debate in the House, including in Committee, to set them up? Is not that a dangerous precedent for the Government to set?

Francis Maude: Powers to amend primary legislation by secondary legislation are not unprecedented. An amendment made in the other place, which the Government supported, will mean that either House can require an enhanced affirmative procedure. Such a procedure not only requires consultation before a draft order is laid, but allows a further period for reflection on, and analysis and scrutiny of, the proposal. It is reasonable to have a reasonably accelerated process for the reform of public bodies. Otherwise, we will end up in a position in which we have a wholly incoherent landscape of public bodies. I confess that even at the end of the process that we are currently proposing, that landscape will still be quite muddled, but it will at least have been cleared to some extent.

Gavin Shuker: rose—

Francis Maude: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will make progress.

Gavin Shuker: rose—

Francis Maude: Oh, well, I give way to the hon. Gentleman’s blandishments.

Gavin Shuker: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) on the OFT and Competition Commission, is that not an odd state of affairs? There are reports that one of those bodies will take responsibility for NHS contracts worth more than £70 million, yet today we are discussing the changes to them abstract from Monitor’s responsibilities.

Francis Maude: The functions will continue to exist, but there will be a rationalisation of the landscape of the bodies. A single competition authority will be created. A number of the consumer advocate functions will be given to citizens advice bureaux, which will strengthen their role and bring welcome additional funding to
	them—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I would hope that hon. Members welcomed the enhancement of the role of CABs that the Bill brings about.
	The Bill provides an ability to make further changes as need arises in future. Each order-making power is limited in its application to those bodies that are listed in the relevant schedule to the Bill. Clause 1 creates a power for a Minister to abolish a body or office by order. Such an order may either abolish the body’s functions if they are no longer required, or transfer some or all of them to another eligible party, such as a Government Department, a charity or another public body.
	In some cases, an order under clause 1 will be motivated by the principle of accountability—that a Minister should be directly accountable for Government actions within their sphere of influence. For that reason, we propose to abolish the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission and to return its functions to the direct control of the Department for Work and Pensions. In other cases, a body will simply be abolished to halt unnecessary expenditure and duplication. For example, clause 1 will also be used to introduce orders to abolish the Valuation Tribunal Service, the functions of which can now be performed by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, and which therefore no longer needs to be a separate entity, with its own overhead costs.
	The next four clauses of the Bill create a complementary set of powers to merge groups of bodies, to modify constitutional or funding arrangements, or to modify or transfer a body’s functions. The breadth of those powers is a reflection of the breadth of the Government’s reform agenda. We aim to enhance the scope of civil society by the creation of a new waterways charity to replace British Waterways. Our agenda spreads to the modification of regulatory bodies such as Ofcom and the Equality and Human Rights Commission to ensure that they are fully focused on their vital regulatory functions.
	In total, 294 bodies currently appear in the schedules to the Bill, demonstrating the importance of this measure to the reform agenda. Details of our proposals for each of those bodies are available in a document that has been placed in the House Library. I can assure the House that that document will be updated regularly throughout the passage of the Bill, and I hope it forms a valuable basis for debate in Committee.
	In addition, the Bill creates specific powers for Welsh Assembly Ministers to take forward a number of changes to public bodies operating in Wales. Those will assist the Welsh Assembly Government as they seek to simplify their public bodies landscape and to deliver further savings, and I hope that those measures also enjoy the support of the House.
	As I have indicated, the passage of the Bill through the Lords saw a number of modifications to the mechanisms of the Bill. The modifications tighten the purposes for which those powers can be used and ensure the appropriate balance between speed and scrutiny in the reform process. Those changes mean that the Bill that was introduced to this House strikes a carefully crafted balance. It will enable Ministers to make much-needed reforms to public bodies without recourse to specific primary legislation, an innovation that I believe will support efficient management of public bodies both now and in the
	future. Yet at the same time, the Bill requires Government to make the case for their proposals to stakeholders and to Parliament, guaranteeing that proper consideration is given to the exercise of important public functions.
	I should tell the House that the Government intend to introduce a number of amendments in Committee. In particular, the House will be aware that following the written ministerial statement on 15 June by the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), who has responsibility for business and enterprise, the abolition of the regional development agencies will now be taken forward in primary legislation through the Bill. Abolishing the RDAs in the Bill will ensure that the Government can meet our timetable for the development of a new framework for regional growth, providing clarity and opportunity to businesses across the nation.
	Similarly, we will seek to amend the Bill to modify the Broadcasting Act 1990 to revise the funding arrangements for S4C by removing the retail prices index link, while securing the channel’s independent future status and delivering significant savings.
	I can also inform the House that the Government will seek to reintroduce the office of the chief coroner and the Youth Justice Board to the Bill’s schedules, overturning votes in the other place. As I said earlier, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has listened to the concerns raised in relation to the important functions that those bodies are designed to carry out, and I believe that our revised proposals will gain wide support. We have agreed that the office of the chief coroner should remain on the statute book, and our amendments will propose adding it to schedule 5 to the Bill to enable some of its functions to be transferred to the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor.
	The Government will propose a number of more technical amendments to the Bill, including to clarify the requirements of the consultation process in clause 10, to ensure that any orders made under the Bill in relation to the funding arrangements of bodies or offices require the consent of the Treasury and to modify the list of taxes subject to variation in their provision as part of a transfer scheme made in connection with an order under the Bill.
	The Government are committed to bringing about radical change in the administration of government in the UK—change that responds to the public’s demand to place the principles of transparency, accountability and value for money at the centre of what the state does. Quango reform has been long promised by parties on both sides of the House and is long overdue, but we have now taken the difficult decisions necessary to make it possible and to make it happen. By enabling a comprehensive and overdue reconfiguration of the landscape and by creating a framework to support better management of public bodies in the future, the Bill gives the Government the essential tools with which to turn this commitment into reality. I commend it to the House.

Tessa Jowell: I beg to move,
	That this House, while agreeing that there needs to be a constant reassessment of the role, effectiveness and relevance of public bodies, declines to give a second reading to the Public
	Bodies Bill because it fails to provide a full and comprehensive plan for the reform of public bodies; regrets that Ministers have failed to properly cost reforms and identify savings, have failed to understand the important functions performed by some of the bodies affected by the Bill and therefore to provide for credible successor arrangements, have failed to consult properly on proposed reforms with the public and the bodies themselves, and have failed to undertake a proper impact assessment of each affected body; and considers that the overall effect of these failings has been that the House has been presented with legislative proposals which undermine the credibility of the proper processes of government.
	It gives me great pleasure to move the reasoned amendment in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I have listened closely to what the Minister has said. He was courteous and kind about the treatment of the Bill in another place, but to describe the scrutiny process in the terms he did was an understatement. In fact, the Bill, which in its original form gave him licence to meddle on an unprecedented scale in the affairs of bodies discharging functions on behalf of the public, was not just overhauled, but was mauled by the scrutiny of another place. Lord Woolf said that it was
	“a matter of grave concern to the judiciary.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 November 2010; Vol. 722, c. 75.]
	The Lords Constitution Committee said that it struck
	“at the very heart of our constitutional system”,
	and Baroness Royall was not alone in saying that
	“this is a bad Bill. It is badly thought out, badly structured, badly executed, bad for the constitution, bad for public bodies and bad for government.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 November 2010; Vol. 68, c. 722.]
	I listened closely to what the Minister said were his intentions for the scrutiny of the Bill in the House, and I would like to put him on notice: we will fight with every available argument to ensure proper protection for the Youth Justice Board, which has led to such a dramatic fall in youth crime, and we will fight to honour and see implemented the commitment to the office of the chief coroner. The Minister can deploy a parliamentary majority to vote down the decisions taken in another place, but, as has been indicated already by my right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as other right hon. and hon. Members, he will not be able to defeat the argument in the country over the chief coroner—an argument supported eloquently by the Royal British Legion. I hope with humility therefore that he will take heed of the debate and judge it on its merits.
	The original Bill, as published by the Tory-led coalition, planned to sell off our forests. I would like to pay the warmest tribute to the campaign so excellently and eloquently led by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), which rightly saw a climbdown by the Government and brought together 600,000 people in a campaign against the sale of our national heritage. The original Bill also left 150 organisations in the organisational limbo of what was then schedule 7 of the Bill—sounds innocuous enough, does it not? But Channel 4 was listed, as were the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Charity Commission, the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the independent Judicial Appointments Commission. All were placed in a schedule that would have left them open to being axed at the stroke of a Minister’s pen.
	The process of these reforms has been deeply flawed, and the Government still lack detailed plans for many of the bodies that they are seeking to change, merge or abolish. They have produced a Bill before a plan, rather
	than a plan before a Bill. Having said that—by way of introduction—of course we support the reform of public bodies and public services. Indeed, before the election, the previous Labour Government had put in place a programme to reform public bodies. That programme must be constant and continuing.
	Nevertheless, these organisations carry out an enormous range of important public functions and play an important part in the life of the people of this country, providing support for our universities, our sports culture and the arts, standing up for vulnerable people, holding Governments to account, upholding minimum standards and helping to improve our public services. As the Institute for Government, of which I am a fellow—an unremunerated position—wrote,
	“public bodies are now fundamental to the function of Government.”
	The needs of the country constantly change and our public bodies must change too, which is why every Government need constantly to reassess their role, effectiveness and relevance. We did that and the Government are doing the same. That is not the issue. When we came to power in 1997, there were almost 1,130 public bodies, and by the time of our 2009 review, we had cut their number to about 750—a reduction of almost one third.

Simon Kirby: The right hon. Lady claims that her Government reduced the number of quangos, but actually spending went up in real terms by about 50%. How does she explain that?

Tessa Jowell: We ought to take into account the reduction of bodies at the Department of Health, link to that the significant reduction in the number of bodies announced by the Haskins review of Natural England and consider the systematic reduction in the number of other bodies, as well as the fact that some were merged and others increased their functions. However, in March 2010, we announced plans to go further and faster and to reduce the overall number of bodies by a further 123.

Francis Maude: Does the right hon. Lady accept that the biggest reduction in the number of public bodies came through their devolution to the Scottish and Welsh Governments?

Tessa Jowell: I do not necessarily accept that that was the largest reduction. However, devolution was one of the most significant policies introduced—and proudly so—by the Labour Government and of course previously reserved powers were then devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.
	A 20% reduction would have saved £500 million from next year. The Minister jibbed at that, but we viewed the process of altering, closing down and merging public bodies as one that should take place systematically over time. Those £500 million of savings would have been realised by next year.

Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a lot of what is being proposed is window dressing, in the sense that even closing down bodies such as the Audit Commission will cost some £400 million in pension liabilities and winding up other assets? When we look at some of those organisations in detail, we see that the payback period might not come for, say, 10 years.

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is obviously correct. I intend to make some progress now, but I will come to precisely that point in a little while.
	We would have saved £500 million by 2012-13 as a result of planned and properly costed change and reform. We also accepted that there is scope for further reform. We agree that the Railway Heritage Committee should be reformed and that the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts should enter the voluntary sector. We also support the reform of a number of other significant bodies. The problem is not with reform, nor is it with the tests that the Minister has set for that reform, as I will set out in a moment; the problem is with his ill-thought out and rushed through Bill. There has been confusion about what the Minister’s motives are. First he told us this week that the Bill was about, as he put it, “sound money”; later we were told that it was about underpinning good government. However, whether the issue is money or good government, the Government’s proposals in this Bill are certainly not the answer.
	The Government are asking the House to agree to the abolition of important bodies such as those raised by my hon. Friends in interventions—they include Consumer Focus, the Commission for Rural Communities and the Football Licensing Authority—but the right hon. Gentleman cannot yet tell us what he will put in their place. He has also claimed £30 billion in savings when the reality is that the Government will save £1.6 billion—or less, when redundancies have been paid for.

Andrew George: I hope that the right hon. Lady would agree that rather than trading figures for partisan purposes, we need to have a proper audit of what is going on. A moment ago she mentioned the Commission for Rural Communities. As that body is being brought in-house by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—that is probably a sensible thing to do—we do not necessarily know whether that will be counted as a saving or whether it will be lost from the overall audit of what quangos cost the country. At the end of the day, however, the important point is the one that I made earlier. We need a rural advocate that is independent of all the partisan debate that we have in this place.

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman has set out the precise nature of the debate that will need to take place in Committee, because losing the independence and the advocacy role of a number of these significant bodies will harm the proper process of representing interests that often get too little hearing in this House.

Helen Goodman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is exposed by the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board and the Commission for Rural Communities —as well as the proposals on forests, on which there had to be a U-turn—is an attitude of arrogance towards the countryside and the idea that it is not necessary to listen because the Government think that they know best?

Tessa Jowell: I certainly hope that the Minister will accept my invitation to rethink some of the Government’s proposals and ensure that the Committee stage involves genuine and proper scrutiny of some of the compelling individual cases. I also hope that he will show proper respect and understanding, not for, as it were, the headline description of a clutch of quangos, but for the
	vital functions that many such bodies perform—as my hon. Friend has so clearly described—in protecting the quality of life for people across the country in a variety of different ways.

Oliver Heald: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Tessa Jowell: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I am going to make some progress, as there are lots of Back Benchers who want to speak in this debate.
	The approach that the Government have taken in this Bill is the opposite of the clear and costed plan that was produced by the last Government. They are abolishing and merging bodies, in some cases without any idea of what their functions are. Again, I hope that a greater understanding of those functions will result from further scrutiny. Even now, more than 10 months after the review of public bodies began, we are still in the dark over what the Government have planned for a number of the bodies in this Bill. A number of consultations have begun, but the Government are not even waiting for the results. Consultation was eventually promised on the regional development agencies, but it has now been withdrawn because it would disrupt the process of disassembling RDAs that is already under way. Today the Secretary of State for Justice has announced a public consultation on all the bodies that affect his Department, but this will report after the Bill has gone through Parliament. Therefore, the Minister here today is effectively asking this House to give its permission fundamentally to change or to abolish those bodies before his colleagues have decided what will be put in their place.
	While the Government cut quangos in this Bill, they are adding hundreds of bodies elsewhere. Let us take the national health service. As a result of the Government’s chaotic approach to the NHS, they have tripled the number of statutory bodies in the NHS, which now number 521. There will now be new shadow commissioning groups and authorised commissioning groups, primary care trust clusters, strategic health authority clusters, clinical networks and clinical senates, all of which will be overseen by the NHS commissioning board, which the chief executive of the NHS has described as
	“the greatest quango in the sky”.
	The question that we now have to ask the Minister is whether, even with the passage of this Bill, he believes that there will be fewer public bodies in 2015 than when he first entered his Department. What is his baseline number and what will be the number of quangos in 2015? I am happy to give way to him if he wishes to speak at the Dispatch Box. Okay, the House will note the absence of an answer to that question. The Government do not even know how much money they are going to save. In an article in The Sun—the Minister’s newspaper of choice for these purposes—in March, he claimed that the Government would save £30 billion in spending on quangos,
	“so we can protect jobs and frontline services”.
	What he failed to mention was that the majority of those savings were from cuts to the very front-line services that he had pledged to save. Almost £25 billion are from cuts to housing and universities, with almost another £2 billion from our arts, our sports and our museums. Only £2.6 billion of the claimed savings were from actual administration, and even that figure has now come under scrutiny.
	In written evidence submitted to the Public Administration Committee, the Minister’s own Department admitted that only £1.6 billion of cumulative administrative savings can be found. Perhaps the Minister would like to explain to the House where the other £1 billion of administrative savings are likely to come from. [ Interruption. ] Again, the Minister appears not to know where the administrative savings will come from, and this is before the Government have even looked at redundancies, which are a major cost of any organisational transformation. The Local Government Chronicle has estimated that the bill for redundancies at the RDAs alone will cost the Government at least £100 million, yet the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has not even estimated how much they will cost in this financial year. Information gathered from parliamentary answers shows that out of all the Departments affected, only two have so far made estimates of the likely costs of redundancies, neither of which is the Department headed by the Minister. The Minister should take this opportunity to admit to the House that he has no idea what the net savings will be from his reform of public bodies, and no idea of the cost of the redundancies. This deeply flawed Bill is part of a deeply flawed, ill thought out programme of reform that could well end up costing more money than it is projected to save.

Francis Maude: I want to make it absolutely clear, as I have done before, that these are cumulative administrative savings over the spending review period of £2.6 billion, and that they are net of restructuring costs—[ Interruption. ] That was made absolutely clear in March, in my response to the Select Committee. The right hon. Lady has lots of suggestions for what should not be done in the Bill; has she any suggestions for what should be done to reform the quango landscape?

Tessa Jowell: Yes, we certainly have. I should like to refer the right hon. Gentleman to the programme of reform that was clearly set out by the previous Government, on which I am sure full information is available in his Department. If not, I am happy to provide it for him. It involved £500 million-worth of savings by 2012-13.
	Let me now turn to some of the specific bodies listed in the schedules to the Bill. When the Minister began this process of reform, he said that public bodies would be allowed to remain if they fulfilled one of three criteria—namely, if they performed a technical function, if they dealt with issues that required political impartiality or if they needed to act independently to establish facts. I should like to say to the Minister that those are good, rigorous tests of public bodies.
	Let us apply those tests to the Agricultural Wages Board. If the Minister believes that we should preserve bodies that perform an important technical function, surely the board should be removed from the Bill, because it sets the pay of 140,000 people in England. That also covers holiday pay, sick pay and overtime. If the board is abolished, fruit pickers and farm workers will see their wages fall. Workers could lose between £150 and £265 a week in sick pay, because that would no longer be guaranteed. School-age children working at weekends or in summer jobs will also lose out. The Farmers Union of Wales has warned that
	“unless there are systems in place to protect payments to agricultural workers, the industry will not attract the highly skilled technicians it needs to thrive.”
	I hope that the Minister will recognise that Labour is seeking to help him by today launching our “Back the Apple” campaign, which shows our commitment to fairness in the countryside and our backing for the Agricultural Wages Board. It is a precious asset that helps to ensure the decency of fair wages and to enable people working in the countryside get a fair deal.

Andrew George: rose—

Tessa Jowell: Let me turn briefly to the Commission for Equality and Human Rights—

Andrew George: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. There should be only one person on their feet. If the shadow Minister does not wish to give way, the hon. Gentleman should recognise that fact.

Tessa Jowell: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) did not catch my eye—

Andrew George: rose—

Tessa Jowell: I must make some progress; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak later.
	The Minister’s second criterion for the preservation of bodies was that they should deal with issues that require political impartiality. The Commission for Equality and Human Rights is an example of one such body. It exists to break down inequality and to build opportunity and the type of society in which fairness and a life of dignity and respect are not merely an ideal but a fact. The commission’s inclusion in schedules 3 and 5 to the Bill leaves it open to being rendered ineffective by having its constitution altered, or its functions amended or transferred. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again. Only a year ago, the coalition told us that it was going to “tear down” the barriers that people faced as a result of who they were, and that it would stand up for fundamental human freedoms. In defending the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, will he stand up for the fundamental human freedom that it represents?
	The third type of body to be preserved under the Minister’s tests are those that need to act independently to establish facts. Consumer Focus is an excellent example. It is the statutory consumer champion, and it has strong legislative powers.

Tom Greatrex: My right hon. Friend might not have been in the Chamber earlier this afternoon when the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change referred to the need for a strong consumer champion in the energy market, especially as there is effectively a cartel of six big energy companies. Given that the functions of Consumer Focus are effectively being transferred to Citizens Advice, does she acknowledge the concern that the work of those two bodies in protecting the consumer involves two very different skill sets?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The combination of the regulatory responsibility of Consumer Focus and the voluntary responsibilities and representation involved in Citizens Advice’s role is wholly inappropriate. I hope that the Minister will think again on that proposal as well.
	I want briefly to refer to S4C, which also remains in the Bill. S4C is vital to sustaining the Welsh language’s prominence in Welsh culture and society. We therefore hope that the Minister will agree to the independent review of S4C for which the leaders of all four main parties in Wales have called.
	I also want to deal briefly with the Office of the Chief Coroner and the Youth Justice Board. I urge the Minister to stick to the settlement that was concluded in another place in this regard. As has already been mentioned, the introduction of the Office of the Chief Coroner received cross-party support when it was legislated for in 2009. There is a desperate need to improve the coronial system, which fails too many families. Establishing such a system is also a central obligation under the military covenant. I hope that the Minister will heed carefully the words of Chris Simpkins, the director-general of the Royal British Legion, who has said that he believes that
	“this decision would be a deep betrayal of bereaved Service families. We anxiously await a response that will satisfy us that the interests of Service families will be represented.”
	Over the course of the last Parliament, the Youth Justice Board oversaw a 43% reduction in first-time youth offenders, by working with youth offending teams to focus on the causes of crime. In another place, Lord Woolf has said that
	“this initiative has been wholly salutary. It…gave new hope to all those who were concerned for this area of our justice system. The best test of the innovation is to ask, “Did it work?”…the balance sheet would show a huge improvement”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 March 2011; Vol. 726, c. 961.]
	I hope that, during the Bill’s progress through the House, the Minister will consider carefully the power of these arguments from people of the utmost distinction and sincerity.
	In conclusion, let me reaffirm our support for reform, while stating that it needs to be planned, properly costed and undertaken on the basis of clear necessity and an understanding of the context in which these bodies operate. The way in which the Government have conducted this legislation to date has been an affront to decent process. I now call on Members of all parties, having properly considered the important role and function of many of the bodies that so clearly meet the Minister’s test, to rebuild the shaken confidence in this legislation and support our reasoned amendment in the Lobby this evening.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. As many hon. Members want to catch my eye, I am reducing the time limit to six minutes.

Stephen Mosley: For those of us who have kept an eye on the Public Bodies Bill as it made its turbulent six-month passage through the other place, today’s Second Reading comes as a relief. We now have a Bill substantially different from the one originally proposed—a Bill much improved by the amendments tabled in the other place and supported by Ministers. We now have a Bill whose principles should be acceptable to all Members; a Bill that will shine the light of
	accountability and transparency on many parts of the extended public sector and that will deliver huge value-for-money savings for the hard-pressed taxpayer.
	In the last 10 years, the cost of non-departmental public bodies, like much of our nation’s spending, has spiralled out of control. Despite a steady reduction in the number of quangos since 1979, the cost to the public purse has almost continually increased, with annual Government funding doubling to £39 billion in the years since the turn of the millennium. This Bill will allow huge savings to be made—a cumulative saving of £30 billion over the spending review period, with estimated annual savings of at least £11 billion a year by 2014-15.
	As highlighted by the shadow Minister and in the amendment, costs will occur when shedding such excessive waste, but the potential long-term benefits are so great that it is essential for the Government to push ahead and deliver the long-term efficiency and sustainability that this Bill will enable.
	I am sure that all Members will join me in welcoming schedule 5, which transfers British Waterways’ network in England and Wales to a new charitable trust. My constituency has a certain claim to the resurgence of our nation’s waterways in the 20th century, for it was in Chester that Tom Rolt, the founding father of the Inland Waterways Association, was born in 1910. It is worth noting that since the middle of the last century, the Inland Waterways Association has itself been calling for a third-sector model for running our nation’s waterways.
	The proposals from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to create a new waterways charity, initially from the British Waterways Board, but eventually including the Environment Agency navigations in 2014, have been widely welcomed—but it is crucial that we get this right. Half the population lives within five miles of one of our canals and rivers, and 13 million people use them every year. These days, people do not use them only for boating or angling. In Chester, we have cycleways and safe green walkways into the city centre for shoppers and commuters. We have dog walkers and joggers, and canals and waterways are at the centre of economic regeneration in many of our urban areas.
	There will still need to be public financial support for our waterways, especially after the inclusion of the Environment Agency navigations that have less commercial opportunities than British Waterways; and DEFRA will need to ensure that this support continues in future. Unlike many of the organisations facing change, British Waterways has welcomed these proposals, stating that
	“by moving to a civil society organisation, British Waterways aims to increase the level of public and volunteer participation in the waterways and widen the network’s supporter base”—
	a sentiment and a proposal that I am sure we can all support.
	Accountability and value for money are central to all areas of public service. That being so, I am heartened by the proposals formally to abolish the regional development agencies. In budgetary terms, my area’s Northwest Regional Development Agency is the largest RDA outside London. In 2008-09, its budget was £421 million, and as of May last year, it employed 481 members of staff. Yet despite its huge budget and complement of staff, private enterprise has suffered proportionately more as a result of the recession in the north-west than in other regions of the UK.

Mark Tami: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the whole Deeside hub area, which covers his seat and mine, is one of the most vibrant and growing manufacturing areas in the whole country? We have to build on that rather than undermine it?

Stephen Mosley: I totally agree, but one problem with the RDA is that it stops at England’s border and has not looked over it. We have reached a situation in which there is almost a wall between Chester and north Wales. I hope that with local enterprise partnerships, we will have more local interaction so that there will be an improvement.
	As I was saying, the north-west has suffered disproportionately more as a result of the recession than any other UK region and has seen the largest net decline in private enterprises in the country. Many of the private enterprises that should be powering the region forward have simply shut up shop—not a great success story for our regional development agency, and not something that I have seen splashed across one of its expensively produced glossy magazines, which seem to focus more on what it has spent than on what it has achieved.
	Business sometimes needs support, especially at the start-up phase, but the remote, bureaucratic regional development agency model is not the most productive way of providing it. The replacement of RDAs by local enterprise partnerships—local, accountable and business-led organisations—is greatly to be welcomed.
	I wholeheartedly welcome the proposals in the Bill. The one area on which I seek reassurance from the Minister relates to the proposed triennial review process of remaining public bodies. The Public Administration Committee made detailed criticisms of the five-yearly review process that existed until 2002. I would welcome an opportunity to examine the new triennial process and the criteria against which public bodies will be evaluated in future. As I have said before, I am enthusiastically supportive of the Bill, which is a continuation of the Government’s relentless approach to localism, accountability, transparency and efficiency. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will support the principles that lie at the heart of the Bill.

Susan Elan Jones: I wish to speak up for our one Welsh language television channel, S4C. I call for the provisions that affect it to be totally removed from the Bill. How did they come to be included? Was the plan for S4C’s future the result of meticulous thought, planning and consultation? No. It was a backdoor deal between Ministers from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, who declared that they had never actually seen the channel, but had a liking for Fireman Sam, and the BBC on the eve of the comprehensive spending review. The BBC offered up S4C as a concession—an appetiser in the face of Government threats of much deeper cuts. This deal was the result.
	The Government announced that they would slash direct funding by 94% and shoehorn S4C into a so-called “partnership” deal with the BBC, which would pick up some of the shortfall. The BBC has agreed to top up funding to 75% of previous levels until 2015; after that, S4C will have to pitch for funds and the BBC will be free to do what it wants, even though its own funding is guaranteed for much longer.
	The Government have had to throw S4C into the Public Bodies Bill to get their plan through because S4C’s funding is currently protected by law. S4C’s status and funding were set in law in recognition of the crucial role that it plays in protecting and promoting a language classified as “vulnerable” by no less august a body than UNESCO—a language that has steadily disappeared from communities over the last 100 years and is now spoken by just over 20% of Welsh people, down from 60% at the dawn of the 20th century.
	Welsh does have a future, however. Its use is now rising for the first time in living memory—precisely because of hard-fought initiatives like S4C. The cross-party Welsh Affairs Committee, of which I am a member under the august chairmanship of the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies)—I hope he will be a right hon. Member one day—stated in the plainest possible terms in its recent report that S4C has played a
	“key part… in bolstering the everyday use of the Welsh language”,
	and concluded that S4C
	“brought the Welsh language into many homes where it may not have been heard previously.”

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend is making an eloquent case in citing the private deals made by the Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Has she considered the possibility that they took account of the views of News International and the plurality issue?

Susan Elan Jones: They probably took as much account of those factors as they appear to have taken of everything else involving S4C.

Alun Cairns: May I return the hon. Lady to her point about funding? She claimed that S4C had suffered a 94% cut, but if we are to have a sensible debate about this important issue, should we not recognise the reality, which is that it will be subject to cuts of 6% per annum for the next four years? That is much better than what is happening to many other public sector departments, and should be sufficient for it to deliver its objectives. Does the hon. Lady regret the fact that over the last 13 years there has not been adequate scrutiny—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I believe that the hon. Gentleman hopes to catch my eye later. He cannot make his speech now.

Susan Elan Jones: The hon. Gentleman could have made a much better intervention about funding. If the intervention that he made was intended merely to back up his party’s crib sheet, I do not think that that was very sensible. He could have pointed out that yesterday the Department said that it would remove the reference to S4C from schedule 4 and give it a clause of its own, but, unbelievably, no additional funds and no commitment to funding after 2015.

Paul Flynn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Susan Elan Jones: I would love to, but I am conscious that from now on there is no more injury time.
	The Select Committee concluded that
	“S4C provides value for money.”
	This is no sweet little niche cultural project that is propped up out of the kindness of taxpayers’ hearts. The channel is already cutting costs, and has overheads of only 4.5%, compared to 12% at the BBC. It is popular and well watched. According to the Select Committee, its
	“share of the viewing audience during peak times”
	is holding up “remarkably well”, and viewing figures for key programmes compare favourably with those for their English-language equivalents.
	On top of all that, the channel supports 2,000 Welsh jobs and contributes £90 million to the Welsh economy. This is not an institution in desperate need of top-down reform. The Bill, however, will impose catastrophic changes that will not even comply with its own aims. Ministers talk the language of sustainability, but they refuse to guarantee S4C’s future beyond 2015. They talk about accountability and transparency, but this move will take S4C’s funding out of direct Government control and hand it over to an arm’s-length body. They talk about maintaining S4C’s independence—where have we heard about the independence of the media before?—but they have announced no change in the law on BBC Trust responsibility for every penny of the licence fee. The whole plan was drawn up on the back of an envelope by people with no knowledge of S4C or the language that it promotes, who wanted to cut costs without worrying about the consequences. S4C deserves better.
	I am not saying that we cannot have a debate about improving S4C. Indeed, we appear to have been engaging in such a debate for the best part of the last year, and I think that that is right, as is the independent review. The first step, however, is to remove S4C from the Bill altogether. I will vote for its removal as soon as I get the chance, and I hope that the whole House will join me in doing so.

Mark Williams: It is a pleasure to speak on a Bill that is a great improvement on the version originally presented in the House of Lords, although I do not think that the Minister quite conceded that.
	Schedule 7, perhaps the most contentious part of the Bill, has gone, and there is much more restriction of Executive power. The Bill has been amended to require a statutory duty to consult on orders; the simple affirmative procedure has been replaced by an enhanced affirmative process whereby representations can be made to the Minister, and the Minister may re-lay an amended order if necessary. All bodies mentioned in the schedules are now subject to a five-year sunset clause, which means that authority to amend them is confined to the current Parliament and future Governments must either renew the legislation or pass their own. Notwithstanding the inevitable criticisms, this is not the same Bill that the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said
	“would grant to Ministers unacceptable discretion to rewrite the statute book, with inadequate parliamentary scrutiny of, and control over, the process.”

Paul Flynn: Does my hon. Friend recall the Welsh proverb “Mae allwedd arian yn agor pob clo”, which can be translated as “The key of money opens every lock”? It is both a suitable motto for the Murdoch empire and a warning that the money going to the BBC might be used to take over S4C.

Mark Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that quotation. I concur with the sentiment behind it, and I will say something about S4C in a moment. I also associate myself with the spirited defence of the channel presented by the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones).
	The Bill still gives rise to concern on a number of grounds. We might expect that from a Bill that abolishes and reforms a significant number of public bodies, all of which will have their defenders—I shall defend two Welsh organisations later in my speech—but it is worth reflecting on the Government’s reasons for proceeding with it. Under Governments of all parties there has been a huge increase in the number of public bodies in the past 30 or 40 years, and the present Government face the need to reduce the deficit. I was relieved to hear the word “accountability” from my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office as frequently as I did.

Robert Flello: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Williams: I have only four and a half minutes, but I will give way.

Robert Flello: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He talks of accountability. The bereavement and support charity INQUEST says that the Government’s proposals to
	“dismantle the office of the Chief Coroner”
	will
	“add yet another layer… to the… fragmented structure where lines of accountability are opaque and clear leadership is absent.”
	The charity believes that accountability will be reduced if responsibility is given to the Ministry of Justice.

Mark Williams: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present when my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) mentioned the office of the chief coroner. I refer him to my right hon. Friend’s remarks.
	I think we should remind ourselves of the consensus that exists. It is clear that setting about getting rid of a number of public bodies created by primary legislation raises significant challenges, and that the only way of making that achievable was to create a streamlined model. However, it is undoubtedly true that the Bill as originally presented was over-zealous. It was entirely unacceptable that the remaining bodies listed in schedule 7 could be added to other schedules by order. That is now rightly not the case, and the Bill is more suitable for the purpose for which it was intended.
	I welcome the addition of clause 10, which creates a need to consult the person or office-holder to which the proposal relates as well as persons
	“representative of interests substantially affected by the proposal”.
	That, I believe, needs to be reinforced.
	In my constituency in the west of Wales, 60% of residents speak Welsh as a first language. S4C and plurality in Welsh language broadcasting is vital, and concerns remain about the model currently proposed and the impact that it would have on, in particular, S4C's governance and independence. I do not start from a “no change” position. At a time when other broadcasting bodies face significant cuts, S4C cannot—and, for that matter, does not—expect to be treated differently from other broadcasters. It has shown a willingness to discuss a new model with the DCMS and the BBC, but fundamental differences remain between the BBC and S4C.
	The two basic concerns relate to long-term funding and guarantees of funding after 2015, which has been partly addressed—I will qualify that later—by yesterday's written statement, and to S4C’s remaining independent. Yesterday's written statement confirmed that an amendment would be introduced that would put in statute the level of funding for S4C that is required for it to meet its statutory remit as a Welsh language broadcaster. I await the text of the amendment, because it must pave the way for a formula set by the Government and not the BBC, providing parity with other broadcasting organisations.
	It is also vital for S4C to remain financially and operationally independent, and not to be run by the BBC. The DCMS has made clear that it expects S4C to be independent, and has given a number of undertakings to guarantee that. It would be helpful if the Department also made abundantly clear that the BBC must not have its personnel in S4C's management team, and that S4C must remain in charge. Discussions are taking place to find a suitable model, but it is hard not to conclude that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has put all its eggs in one basket in an attempt to meet the time frame for this Bill, instead of addressing fundamentally the challenges of supporting S4C in an age when digital services have led to an increasingly fragmented market and at a time of reduced public expenditure. This looks rushed, and it would surely be better to carry out a full review of how S4C should be constituted, with the aim of finding a long-term solution, whether that be a model of full funding from Westminster, a partnership model along the lines proposed currently, albeit with a stronger guarantee of independence, or even a channel funded by the Welsh Government in the event of broadcasting being devolved.
	All four party leaders in Wales wrote to the Culture Secretary in support of such a review. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs report into S4C stated that this haste was “regrettable”, and the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport said that it found it
	“extraordinary that the Government and the BBC, which is fiercely protective of its own independence, should find it acceptable to agree a change in the funding and governance arrangements for another statutorily independent broadcaster, S4C, without the latter having any involvement, say or even knowledge of the deal until it has been done.”
	It strikes me that this is the respect agenda in reverse.
	It is of great concern that very little consideration seems to have been given to an holistic way forward. On a matter as important as Welsh language broadcasting, that is obviously not good enough, and I would welcome it if the Minister provided an assessment of the current situation regarding negotiations over the future of S4C, and say whether the Government would consider removing the provisions relating to S4C until all the possible
	alternatives have been pursued. In the other place, a great deal of concern was expressed about Channel 4’s inclusion in the Public Bodies Bill and the uncertainty that created. Channel 4 has now been removed from it, and I believe S4C should also be removed.
	Members on the Government Benches have spoken about Citizens Advice and the new functions it would assume from Consumer Focus. Again, in Wales this issue is particularly pressing because the current structure of Citizens Advice does not lend itself to Welsh governance. There is a separate structure in Scotland, which allows for Scottish matters to be looked at differently, but that is not the case in Wales, where policy work is led from London. Consumer Focus Wales wants an amendment led by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to give Assembly Ministers the power to determine the structure they want—a power not to acquire new powers, but to determine a Welsh structure.
	I have focused on the concerns that still exist, but I do not want that to detract from what is a necessary measure. The Bill represents a step forward, but there are considerable—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Time is up.

Bob Ainsworth: I shall confine my remarks to the proposed emasculation of the office of the chief coroner. In the three years during which I had the honour to serve as both Minister of State for the Armed Forces and then Secretary of State for Defence, a high priority for me and the entire ministerial team was to improve the service we gave to the bereaved of our fallen. We did so not to waste public money, but because it was absolutely necessary and absolutely deserved.
	Our proposals were supported by Members on both sides of the House. We created the Defence Inquests Unit to examine, chase and dig out problems within the Ministry of Defence and the individual armed forces themselves, and to make certain that failings were reported to Ministers so that progress could be made. In partnership with the Royal British Legion, we created the defence advisory service, which has just completed its first year of operation and is highly respected by those who, sadly, have to use its services.
	During the years I served as a Defence Minister, I read many transcripts and followed many inquests, and I have to say to the Government and the entire House that there are wide variations in both the manner and quality of coronial inquests. From time to time—too often, I am afraid—they let down our armed forces and the bereaved. I would single out for particular praise Mr Masters, the Trowbridge coroner, who was unsurpassable in his dedication and ability. He certainly exposed failings within the MOD with regard to the XV179 Hercules crash, when we lost 10 personnel. We also lost 14 in the XV230 Nimrod crash, and we had to employ the services of Mr Haddon-Cave to get to the bottom of the problems. That was not a waste of money; it was an absolute necessity that that inquiry was carried out.

Kevan Jones: My right hon. Friend and I had dealings with some of the families of those who served in Afghanistan and Iraq. Does he agree that what they
	want are inquiries that are not only thorough but are conducted in a timely fashion, and that they also want the role of the chief coroner to be independent of the Ministry of Justice, not part of it?

Bob Ainsworth: Independence is absolutely essential, and if inquests are not carried out in a timely fashion, but instead unnecessary delay is caused, that leads to huge distress. Most important, however, is the quality of the investigation, because when people have lost their loved ones they want to know that lessons are being learned and others will not unnecessarily be subject to the same error that caused their loved one to lose their life.
	From my experiences in this area, this is what I would say, with the greatest of respect, to the Government: Ministers cannot advise or train or lead an independent coronial service. It is preposterous for the Government to suggest that the functions of the office of the chief coroner should be rolled into some ministerial committee. They will not con the Royal British Legion in that regard.
	In the course of my responsibilities, I met many bereaved families, who went through their bereavement with great dignity and very ably dealt with the problems they faced. None were more impressive than Mr and Mrs Dicketts—Priscilla and Robert. Robert Dicketts spoke in this House a few months ago, and he recognised the improvements that had been made, but he also said:
	“However, until there is a Chief Coroner, through whom good practice can be driven through the coronial system, it is likely bereaved Armed Forces families will have to go through a system which is often inconsistent and desperately in need of modernisation.”
	Sooner or later, Ministers will listen to the voice of the Royal British Legion and of people such as Robert Dicketts, and they will drop their proposal.

Robert Flello: As ever, my right hon. Friend is making a passionate and thoughtful speech. Would he like to comment on what Chris Simpkins, director general of the Royal British Legion, has written in today’s The  Daily Telegraph in response to comments from the Ministry of Justice about the chief coroner not being justified financially in the current climate? He said:
	“This feeble cost argument should fool no one.”

Bob Ainsworth: I do not believe the cost argument would bear any scrutiny in any case, because I believe the creation of the office of the chief coroner will save money, not cost money, and that it will save heartache as well as money.
	I have to say to Ministers that all their attempts in recent times to muddy the water in this regard and pretend that they have effectively dealt with the objections they have rightly received from those who seek to represent our armed forces and the bereaved will be of no avail and they will sooner or later surrender to the inevitable. They will do it this side of Remembrance day, and for their own sake they will do it sooner rather than later.
	I say to the Government: remove this provision from the Bill; accept the setting up of the highly necessary office of the chief coroner; and honour the military covenant. That is what is required from this Government. It is also what both coalition parties agreed. The Deputy
	Leader of the House is sitting on the Government Front Bench and he was suggesting earlier that this was not necessary and that the arguments in favour of the establishment of an office of chief coroner were spurious. That is not what he was saying in opposition and it is not what his party was saying in opposition. It is a disgrace that he has crossed the Floor of the House and changed his tone in the manner in which he has. Their own Back Benchers will force both parties to do this sooner or later, and the House of Lords will force them if that does not happen, but I say to them that they must remove this provision from the Bill and allow the establishment of the chief coroner. They will not get away with this.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Glyn Davies.

Glyn Davies: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important Second Reading debate. The Bill gives the Government of the day the power to set alight a bonfire of the quangos. Over recent decades, I have been involved in a few of these bonfires. I particularly recall one such bonfire in the early 1990s, when I was very much part of “quangoland” and I painfully ended up on top of one of the bonfires. I was heavily singed, but no real harm was done.
	Another bonfire of the quangos that I was involved with was carried out by the Welsh Assembly Government a few years ago, when I was a Member of the National Assembly for Wales, and I wish to comment on how that was conducted in order to draw a comparison with the democratic and consultative excellence of the processes being followed here at Westminster. That bonfire represented a major change in the governance of Wales, as it included the abolition of the Welsh Development Agency and the Wales Tourist Board, among other bodies. No discussion took place on this; the First Minister simply addressed the Chamber on the last day before the summer recess and announced abolition, without warning, debate or discussion. The debate about the consequences of that bonfire is not for today, except to say that it highlights the way in which our democratic system works in the UK Parliament.
	The Minister for the Cabinet Office put forward his proposals last October. They have since been significantly amended in the upper House by their lordships and they have been further amended by a written statement tabled only yesterday about S4C, prior to their being debated at great length by us in the Chamber today. I suggest that the Bill is far better for its amendment and it demonstrates just how effectively our second revising Chamber functions in its unamended form. I wish to say in passing how much I greatly enjoyed reading and learning from the powerful speeches made by Lord Wigley, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Elystan-Morgan in the other place.
	Non-departmental public bodies play an important role in our democratic system and the Bill does not challenge that principle. Its main purpose is to increase accountability and transparency, and to limit the role of public bodies to that which is needed for good governance. My right hon. Friend the Minister considered more
	than 900 of these public bodies currently in existence and applied the appropriate test of value to them before deciding on their future. It is important to recognise and to say that many of these public bodies are hugely valuable to society, bringing private sector and voluntary sector expertise into the process of government and often facilitating much of what might be referred to as “the big society”. The Bill is about identifying which public bodies bring value to the governance of the UK and which do not.
	I particularly wish to refer, as many others have before, to Sianel Pedwar Cymru—S4C—which is one of the bodies mentioned in the Bill. S4C is a unique body that is of great importance to Wales. It is not just a TV channel; it is the cultural backbone of Wales and its success is inextricably linked to the recent success of the Welsh language. The long-term decline of the Welsh language has been halted over recent years, but without S4C that decline would resume. The Welsh language is fundamental to what makes Wales the proud and distinctive nation that it is.
	I enjoyed what Lord Elystan-Morgan said about Welsh in the other place so much that I wish to quote from his speech. He said:
	“A living language with a living literature is a jewel in the treasury of human culture, and the Welsh language no more and no less than any other living language is such a jewel. It is 1,500 years old and was in existence at least 500 years before the French language came into being. The French language came into being only at the end of the first millennium; up till then it was a patois of Latin. That shows something of the pedigree of the language that we are talking about.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 March 2011; Vol. 725, c. 1628.]
	S4C is crucial to the language’s cultural preservation.
	I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has recognised the concern expressed in the debate in the upper House, throughout Wales and in the Chamber today, and has removed S4C from schedule 4 to the Bill. That is a very welcome move but, as we realise from today’s debate, there will be much discussion about the future of S4C and that has yet to be settled. We seek to ensure its operational and editorial independence in the long term, along with its long-term financial security. I look forward to taking an active part in the consultation that there will be on the governance arrangements for S4C over the next few months.
	This Bill is hugely important, as it will ensure a greater level of accountability and transparency within our democratic system, and I look forward to seeing it passed into law.

Iain Wright: I wish to confine my remarks to the issue of the office of chief coroner. Successive reviews and inquiries over many years have highlighted the need for a chief coroner to oversee standards and handle appeals to deal with unsatisfactory decisions. There are currently no performance management procedures and no appraisals on the performance of individual coroners. There is no culture of mandatory continuing professional development, as there is in the medical, legal or accountancy professions; some coroners may choose simply not to undergo further training and development, and no one is there to pull them up about it. There seems to have been, certainly over the past
	couple of years, almost universal consensus that having the post of chief coroner would bring about real progress in raising standards, and would provide leadership, direction and a degree of accountability. It is disappointing that we do not have that consensus now.
	The truth of the matter is that in my part of the world, the Teesside area, we need the coroner to improve and we need a much better service for families. For the best part of a decade, performance measures for the Teesside coroner have been significantly below the average for England and Wales. Eight years ago, the Teesside coroner, Mr Michael Sheffield, had a backlog of about 200 cases, and bereaved families had a wait of about 35 weeks—double the national average at the time—for an inquest to be completed. The then Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, responded to calls from local MPs of the time, such as Dari Taylor, the late and great Ashok Kumar and Vera Baird, as well as from my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), by launching an inquiry. Mr Sheffield claimed at the time that he welcomed an inquiry, stating, somewhat bizarrely:
	“I hope that the terms of the inquiry will enable the cause of the backlog of inquests to be inquired into.”
	That raises the question: if the coroner himself did not know the reasons for the delays, why did he not know and how could others hold him accountable for that?
	In the aftermath of the inquiry, performance measures for the Teesside coroner improved, but over the past few years they have grown steadily worse again. Last year, the average time taken in England and Wales to complete inquests was 27 weeks—just over six months—whereas the equivalent figure for the Teesside coroner’s district was 43 weeks. The coroner’s office took more than 12 months to complete inquests into 76 deaths—a quarter of all the deaths it investigated in 2010—and three quarters of all cases it investigated took more than six months to conclude.
	By contrast, the coroner for my Hartlepool constituency —Hartlepool and Teesside have traditionally had separate judicial administrative arrangements, and long may that continue—was able to conclude inquests in a significantly better time scale than the national average. The average time that the Hartlepool coroner took to investigate deaths in 2010 was only 20 weeks, and no investigation took more than 12 months to conclude. The Hartlepool coroner has consistently over-performed in terms of the time taken to conclude inquests. Why is there such a difference? Why is the difference in performance so striking? Why does Hartlepool do so well compared with the national average, whereas the Teesside district lags so far behind?

Robert Flello: Does my hon. Friend think that taking such matters in-house in the Ministry of Justice, hiding them away so that they are the responsibility of some civil servant one week and of some department the next, will improve things and make them better?

Iain Wright: No, I think it will make them much worse. That sense of accountability, which we do not have at the moment, would arguably be lost for ever.
	Is the contrast I just mentioned a question of resources, particularly at a time of local authority cuts? Is it a question of competency? Is it a question of needing additional training? We do not know, because the whole process is opaque and shrouded in mystery. In the
	modern age, that is not good enough. Why can families in Teesside who have suffered through the death of a loved one not have some help and support and see the efficient and swift conclusion of the inquest? That is the very least that they deserve.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that because we will not have a chief coroner who can improve standards, we will get more appeals? The only way to go forward at the moment is a judicial review, so will the cost of dealing with such cases not increase rather than decrease?

Iain Wright: I absolutely agree. It will not be value for money for the public purse. There will be additional costs and one of the virtues of a chief coroner’s office would be to help provide an overview of work allocation. I think the establishment of a chief coroner could provide a more rational and therefore more efficient allocation of work, perhaps through the creation of specialist coroners who could provide specific expertise. We could save money and provide a better service for bereaved families.
	It is impossible, or difficult at the very least, for Members of this House to hold coroners to account for their performance. I recently asked a parliamentary question to the Lord Chancellor about the grounds on which an individual holding the post of coroner can be removed from that office only to be told by the Minister that the only ground for removal was personal misconduct or behaviour, but the Minister could not provide a definitive list of possible offences. The Lord Chancellor can remove a coroner only with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. There is simply no transparency in the matter and no criteria by which the House or the public can hold a local coroner to account and determine whether he or she is providing an unsatisfactory service and should be removed. In this day and age—particularly when, as we have heard from the Royal British Legion, servicemen and women are falling for our country—bereaved families in Teesside and elsewhere deserve better. They deserve greater clarity and transparency.
	I have written to the Lord Chancellor about the matter of poor time scales in the Teesside district and I am awaiting a response, but let me reiterate in conclusion that families in Teesside deserve to see inquests into the deaths of loved ones concluded with sympathy, professionalism and swiftness. They are not getting that at the moment and are not being provided with an adequate explanation on why and how matters will be improved. The Bill does not help; in fact, it makes things worse.

Bernard Jenkin: I am most grateful for the opportunity to speak at this stage in the debate.
	The Bill is significant by any standards and represents the Government’s plans to implement their reform of public bodies as a result of the review they carried out in the second half of last year. The Select Committee on Public Administration, which I chair, inquired into the review at the time and published a report last January. Somewhat to my surprise, the report was more controversial
	than I had anticipated, but I emphasise that it was unanimously agreed by all members of the Committee of all political parties.
	We expressed concerns at the time about the way the review was conducted, and we have heard some of them in the Chamber this afternoon. We found that the tests determining whether a public body should be retained or reformed were poorly designed and not applied consistently and that Ministers had failed to consult adequately about them. The Government have suggested that they intend to hold triennial reviews of non-departmental public bodies and I urge them to reconsider the tests to see how they can be reviewed.
	The tests in the Bill are different from the tests applied in the review and I invite the Minister to explain why that is so. As the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General pointed out earlier, there are effectively four tests in the review: the first is existential; the second is whether the body concerned carries out a highly technical activity; the third is whether it is required to be impartial; and the fourth is whether it needs to act independently to establish facts. That is a good stab at the tests required, but funnily enough those are not the tests in the Bill. Clause 8, entitled “Purpose and conditions”, gives four tests: “efficiency”; “effectiveness”, which is a very broad term and is not defined; “economy”, which we presume means value for money; and
	“securing appropriate accountability to Ministers”.
	Again, I do not know what “appropriate accountability” is, and these are very subjective tests to have in legislation.
	Clause 8(2) suggests that any reform of a non-departmental public body should
	“not remove any necessary protection”,
	whatever that means, and should not
	“prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom”,
	which is quite specific and probably an important protection. In our report, we suggested in paragraph 23:
	“There should be a single set of tests that covers: whether a function needs to be performed”—
	the existential test—
	“whether it is appropriate for it to be performed independently by a public body”,
	which is surely the impartiality test,
	“and how it can be delivered most cost-effectively (value for money).”
	I hope that that recommendation might be better reflected in the Bill. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), could address that later.
	The Committee also considered the Government’s claim that abolishing bodies and transferring their functions back to Departments would improve accountability, and I submit that the Government are applying a rather narrow test of what constitutes accountability. Of course, Ministers want to retain influence over decisions for which they are ultimately accountable, but our conclusion was that to focus exclusively on that traditional form of ministerial accountability ignores other ways in which bodies are held to account. In particular, we are all aware of how stakeholder groups and civil society play an important role in providing challenge and criticism to public bodies from day to day so long as they have a clearly identifiable focus for that challenge. I do not
	wish to denigrate civil servants in any way, but a civil servant in a Department is a far more anonymous entity than a named public body. The Committee proposed that converting public bodies into executive agencies could ensure that Ministers remained responsible for clearly identifiable bodies within their departmental responsibilities without losing that public focus.
	We also considered a number of other topics that we felt were important to make the reforms a success, including how Departments sponsor their public bodies and how the transition should be managed. The Government’s response was somewhat critical of parts of our analysis, particularly the comments on cost savings, and I was glad to hear ministerial clarification earlier this year of how cost savings will be made. To the Government’s credit, they accepted a number of our recommendations, including the conversion of some public bodies into executive agencies.
	This is a controversial Bill, because we do not have an Armed Forces Minister or a Justice Minister at the Dispatch Box to answer all these problems. It is that shortcoming in the Bill that led the other place to make substantial amendments to it. It is much improved and much more acceptable and I shall certainly support it, but we could make improvements to ensure that these controversial changes to bodies that were, after all, brought into being through primary legislation are not simply ticked off by Ministers with a stroke of the pen.

Paul Goggins: I have particular concerns about two bodies that were taken out of the Bill by the House of Lords but that the Government intend, as the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General has suggested this afternoon, to put back into the Bill in Committee. I remain hopeful that Ministers are still listening and are prepared to change their minds.
	The Youth Justice Board has brought leadership and coherence to a system that was deeply fragmented. The creation of youth offending teams has been very impressive, as has the reduction in the number of young people going into custody: a 30% reduction over the lifetime of the board. I would expect the Government to be interested in that if for no other reason than because it represents a saving, in relation to the places that have now been decommissioned, of £38 million a year. If the Youth Justice Board is abolished, that might lead to a saving of a few hundred thousand pounds, but if the Government lose their grip on the youth offending system and particularly of youth custody because the board is not in place to grip it, that could produce incredibly high costs in future.
	I am also deeply worried about the Government’s intention to dilute the office of the chief coroner. I hope that the House will forgive me for setting out the history so that Members and Ministers can appreciate the depth of betrayal that many individuals, families and organisations are feeling. In 2003, I was given ministerial responsibility for death certification and coroners’ services. One of the first things I did in that role was to receive the report of the independent review of coroner services led by Tom Luce. He found that the system was outdated, inconsistent and unsympathetic to families, and he proposed fundamental reform. A little time later, the then Home Secretary and I received the third report of the Shipman
	inquiry, which was the product of painstaking work by Dame Janet Smith into the failure of the death certification system to identify and stop the murderous activities of Harold Shipman. Dame Janet concluded that coroners and the coroner service must be independent of Government and that it was simply unacceptable for the coroner service to be administered from within a Government Department. That conclusion was hugely relevant given what the Government now propose.

Jon Trickett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that quite frequently the Government may be judged as culpable in contributing to a death and that it is therefore bizarre that a member of the Cabinet—the Lord Chancellor—should have some responsibility for the coronial service?

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. In December, when this matter was debated in the other place, Lord Lester made the important point that unless there is a properly independent system of investigation of deaths, the Government cannot be confident about satisfying their article 2 obligations on the investigation of deaths. That is particularly relevant in relation to deaths in prison and police custody.
	In March 2004, I set out proposals for reform in which the bereaved and their families were to be placed at the heart of the system. Ministers should be reminded of the importance of putting those people at the heart of the system. Under the proposals, a chief coroner was to be appointed with complete judicial independence to lead a streamlined and modernised service, to ensure training and high standards and to carry responsibility for undertaking appeals and presiding over more complex inquests. Eventually, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 enacted those proposals. I pay tribute to Bridget Prentice—a good friend and very able Minister—who with characteristic energy and determination turned the countless words of the public inquiries, reviews and consultations into legislation, which was passed with the support of all parties in the House, including those that now turn their backs on it.
	The need for a chief coroner is even greater now, with inquests becoming ever more complex and high-profile. Only recently, we have had the Tomlinson and 7/7 inquests—cases in point. Another change since 2003, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) referred to in his very powerful speech, has been the experience of bereaved families of the servicemen and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Their experience screams out for a system that is sympathetic, that understands the circumstances they face and that has their confidence.
	The Government’s arguments about costs do not hold water and cannot be justified. Ministers should not simply accept the figures in the impact assessment but should challenge them. There is not one Member of this House who does not believe that the set-up and running costs of the office of the chief coroner could not be reduced. It is the business of Ministers to get those costs down, not to hide behind what was in the impact assessment. Of course, they are not counting the costs of failing to implement the reforms that were agreed in the last Parliament, such as the £500,000 or more that is spent every year on judicial reviews—not to mention the costs that will be incurred by transferring some of the functions of the office of the chief coroner
	to the Lord Chief Justice. Those matters will still need to be overseen by judges, and judges do not come for nothing—they cost money. Those costs still are not being counted.

Kevan Jones: Is it not remarkable that although the Government have announced that they will transfer the powers of the chief coroner to the Ministry of Justice and others, they have not yet laid out what that will cost to administer?

Paul Goggins: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It really is a shabby case. The Government are relying on old figures, which have not been challenged, and bringing forward proposals that have absolutely no work behind them whatever. My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point.
	In failing to follow through on these reforms, the Government are not considering the human and health costs that will be incurred by our not learning the lessons of unfortunate and tragic deaths—information that could help to prevent deaths in future. Ministers have no proposals to monitor timeliness or to introduce an appeals system. Other hon. Members have made the point about the importance of that issue.
	What the Government are doing to the office of the chief coroner is a betrayal. If they proceed with this reform they will be turning their back on six or seven years’ worth of patient consultation and policy development, which led to legislation that was agreed by all parties in the House. They will be turning their back on Tom Luce, Dame Janet Smith, the families of the victims of Harold Shipman and the bereaved families of the service personnel who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. They will be turning their back on many vulnerable people who have had to pick their way through our outdated coronial system. But the Government still have a chance: they have the rest of this evening and Committee proceedings finally to do the right thing and drop these proposals.

Alun Cairns: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. Although, as been said, the Bill is a piece of enabling legislation, it goes to the heart of the Government and their objectives. It will enable Ministers to make the necessary changes to reform public services and bring organisations to democratic accountability, and it paves the way to bring significant savings.
	It is ironic that the Bill is being opposed by the Labour party. In his memoirs, Tony Blair made several references to having regretted the delays in reforming public services during the early years of his government. There are several quotes that I could mention, but it is worth highlighting his thoughts about his previous comments that it was not complex institutional structures but outcomes that mattered. He said:
	“Unfortunately, as I began to realise when experience started to shape our thinking, it was bunkum….How a service is configured affects outcomes.”
	It is also worth noting that much of his frustration related to the time and delay involved in making reforms. This Bill would have met Mr Blair’s calls in hindsight.

John McDonnell: We’re all Blairites now are we?

Alun Cairns: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes.
	It is unlikely that Mr Blair and I would agree on the nature of reforms, but this legislation paves the way for Ministers to make necessary changes with appropriate scrutiny—without the delay that Mr Blair talked about—by giving them the mechanisms to do so. I am sure that hon. Members will have a soft spot for one or two of the bodies listed in the schedules, despite wanting to see the reform of such public bodies. We might even be drawn into trying to defend those institutions. Such an approach would be fair if schedule 7 of the original Bill remained and if the amendments made in the other place had not been accepted by Ministers. To give the Government credit, they have sought to listen to concerns and have accepted the threat that schedule 7 posed to lack of scrutiny. However, there must always be a balance between the Government having their way and the opportunity for appropriate scrutiny. The original schedule 7 did not necessarily achieve the equilibrium that we are looking for; I am pleased that it has been removed.
	It is hard to believe that the quango state had grown to 901 bodies under the previous Administration. In their desire to manage controversies, a new agency would often be established to show that something was being done. Some might even argue that the agencies were useful bodies to which to retire former colleagues. The case for winding up or reorganising their numbers and purposes is overwhelming.

Kevan Jones: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but the worst culprit for packing quangos was the previous Conservative Government. If he cares to do his homework, he will find that one quango we invented, with which I have had a few run-ins, is the independent Appointments Commission. It took out of politicians’ hands altogether the appointment of people to quango boards.

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it was the previous Conservative Government who cleaned up the appointments process to ensure that there was transparency in selection. I point to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority as one of the worst examples of a Government merely reacting to public concerns without thinking through the consequences in a proper, deliberate way; it has given rise to many complaints from this House, and there is also the issue of the additional costs of that agency.

Kevan Jones: If the hon. Gentleman will cite examples, I wish he would do his homework. IPSA was supported by Members in all parts of the House; the strongest advocate for it was the current Prime Minister.

Alun Cairns: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and I accept the point about all-party support, but the point is the knee-jerk reaction of the Prime Minister of the day, who took the decision without providing for appropriate scrutiny. The proposal was rushed through the House without the then Opposition having an opportunity to make their case. I need to make progress, because of the time. I want to come on to some of the points made earlier.
	A word of caution: merely merging individual bodies with a Government Department is not necessarily the right thing to do. There must be reform and enhancement. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General for talking about the need for reform when he opened the debate. I speak from experience of the so-called bonfire of the quangos in Wales some years ago. For purely political reasons, the Welsh Assembly Government abolished the Welsh Development Agency and the Wales Tourist Board, among many other organisations. That was welcomed by Labour, Plaid Cymru and Liberal Democrat politicians at the time. The claim was that there would be better democratic accountability, but the reality was very different. Simply merging the organisations without reform meant that agency staff became civil servants, and the expertise gained over many years was stifled by the bureaucracy of the civil service. Those events started almost seven years ago to this day, and those very people who were the strongest cheerleaders for the winding up of those bodies are now calling for their re-establishment.
	I am certainly not opposed to the lists in the schedules, or to the need for Ministers to reform and reorganise. I strongly agree with the objectives of the legislation, but caution against winding up for winding up’s sake. I would also underline the need to make reform part of the process. There must be a wider reforming agenda to improve services.
	In the final couple of minutes available to me, I want to talk about S4C. The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) made a pretty disingenuous contribution. To talk about a 96% cut to funding certainly is not accurate. S4C will receive a 6% funding cut per annum over the next four years. That is very different from the sort of figures that she talked about. Furthermore, all the demands made by supporters of S4C have been met by the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. I shall go through the primary ones in turn. The first was about the importance of long-term funding. I was delighted that in the written ministerial statement published on Monday, the Government said:
	“The Government are committed to ensuring that S4C will be funded at a level sufficient to ensure that it can fulfil its statutory remit and we intend to put this expectation on the statute book so that it is a legal requirement.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2011; Vol. 531, c. 2-3 WS.]
	Certainly, that issue has been resolved.
	Secondly, the need for independence, both operational and editorial, has been accepted by the Secretary of State for Wales. Thirdly, on the issue of the arrangements with the BBC, of course the provisions have to be in the Bill to secure the very independence that we have been talking about, and the long-term funding arrangements for which everyone has called. Those who are critical on the subject of S4C, and the strongest champions of the channel, are not equally critical when it comes to Radio Cymru, for which the BBC is also responsible, so there is significant inconsistency in the argument that is made.
	Finally, it is ironic that the retail prices index link was part of the fault. Many S4C Authority members have shown arrogance over the past year; they felt that they had the right to do things irrespective of the attitude of viewers, whose numbers have been falling for the past five years or more. It is time to act, and I am delighted that the Government are doing so.

Jonathan Edwards: I want to concentrate on the very worrying impact that the Bill will have on S4C, an institution of paramount importance to my country. I regret to say that I have a slightly different opinion from the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns). There is no doubt that the UK Government have dealt with the issue in a haphazard manner. They clearly failed to understand the importance of S4C to Wales. Twenty-four bodies from Welsh civil society have written to the UK Government, asking them to change their plans; thousands of people have protested on the streets; and hon. Members from Wales have had countless pieces of correspondence from concerned constituents.
	The position of my party is that S4C should not be included in the Bill at all, and that the arrangements should be dealt with in a future broadcasting Bill, following an independent review. That was the position of all four political parties in the National Assembly for Wales, including the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Even at this late stage, that would be our preferred outcome. However, we are where we are, and I will endeavour to attempt to improve the Bill before us, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) in Committee.
	Ministers will be aware that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs undertook a detailed investigation into S4C. It is right and proper that I pay tribute to the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), who managed to produce a report on which there is substantial consensus across all four parties on the Committee. We await the Department’s reply, but I would like to concentrate on the issues that are of critical importance. S4C will face substantial cuts to its budget over the spending review period. If my sums are correct, the Department has managed to reduce its liability by more than 90%.

Alun Cairns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jonathan Edwards: I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s question before he asks it: S4C’s funding will fall from around £100 million this year to £83 million by 2014-15; £76 million of that will come from the BBC, and £7 million from the Department.

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but does he not accept that the outcome leaves S4C in a pretty strong position, financially? It will receive a 6% cut over each of the next four years, which is a much lesser cut than those to most spending Departments across Government. Furthermore, independent television producers have welcomed the outcome, saying that the cuts are certainly achievable, within the sums in question.

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful for that intervention, and the hon. Gentleman leads me on to my next point, which is about one of the key recommendations of the Welsh Affairs Committee report. I would like the Government, as part of the Bill—and the future funding formula for S4C, which was announced yesterday—to state clearly that cuts will be comparable to those for other public service broadcasters. That would appease many in Wales.
	The Select Committee report also called on the UK Government to safeguard the funding for the channel beyond 2014-15. We argued that without long-term certainty of funding, the channel would not be able to plan its future commissioning strategy. We called for a long-term funding formula enacted in primary legislation. I therefore welcome the written statement yesterday as a positive step forward. The devil will be in the detail, but my colleagues and I look forward to working constructively to build on yesterday’s announcement, which in our view would have to be based on some sort of inflationary calculation.
	As a party we have major concerns that S4C will mostly be dependent on funding via the licence fee. Our preference would be for a direct funding stream. If the Department is intent on funding S4C via the BBC, the licence fee should be top-sliced. As my right hon. friend Lord Wigley said during the passage of the Bill in the other place:
	“He who pays the piper calls the tune.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 March 2011; Vol. 726, c. 1005.]
	If S4C does not have total control over its own budget, its financial independence will be shot to pieces.
	Ministers might be aware that the Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union, the National Union of Journalists, the Writers Guild of Great Britain, Equity, the Musicians Union, and Cymdeithas yr laith Gymraeg have all jointly called for the resources available to S4C to be increased by raising a levy on private broadcasters, drawing on best practice in other countries.

Guto Bebb: The hon. Gentleman mentions the need for funding to be raised from other broadcasters. Does he accept that the Select Committee report indicated that the Welsh Assembly could play a part? The Welsh Assembly claims that it wants the channel to be accountable to it, yet it is not willing to put any money into the pot.

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful for that intervention and I look forward to the day when broadcasting is devolved to the Welsh Government. In light of events of recent weeks, I expected support from across the House for the innovative idea of a levy on private broadcasters to support public service broadcasting in the UK. I hope Ministers are actively pursuing the idea.
	That brings me to operational independence. The Committee called for assurances that operationally there would be no role for the BBC in the day-to-day management of S4C. I for one cannot see how anyone can claim that S4C is an independent broadcaster if it has personnel from another channel running its day-to-day affairs. I hope the Department will make a clear statement on the issue as the Bill progresses.
	The ability of a public service broadcaster to hold Government to account is essential if it is to retain the confidence of its audience. Therefore we view the inclusion of S4C in schedule 3 as particularly worrying. The schedule enables the Department to make significant changes to the management and organisation of S4C without recourse to primary legislation.
	I shall deal briefly with other consequences of the Bill for Wales. Much of the rest of the Bill refers to powers over environmental bodies being devolved to Wales. These bodies are listed in clause 13 as being the Welsh devolved functions of the Countryside Council for Wales, the Environment Agency, the Forestry Commissioners and Welsh flood and coastal committees. I seek clarification of clause 18 and the requirement of consent from UK Ministers. How is this to be operated, and in what situations do Ministers expect this to take place? I am also confused by the reference to the Secretary of State in clause 20(11). Does this mean that any order made by Welsh Ministers will be subject to a veto by the Houses of Parliament? That would clearly go against the result of the referendum in March. We will test these clauses in greater detail in Committee.
	Finally, on consumer advocacy in Wales, the Bill proposes that Consumer Focus be abolished and its functions transferred to Citizens Advice in Wales and England. There is broad support for distinct consumer advocacy for Wales. There seems to be strong support among key stakeholders for advice and advocacy in Wales being brought under one body. I am glad that the UK Government have stated that they are open to making different provisions for Wales and Scotland following discussions with the devolved Administrations. I understand that current consumer bodies such as the CAB movement in Wales are adapting their governance structures in light of anticipated changes, and I urge the Department to work closely with Welsh Government Ministers and stakeholders to develop a solution that is client-focused and best able to respond to the needs of the Welsh people.

Elizabeth Truss: It is more than 50 years since the term “quango” was first coined in the United States, during which time a rising number of such bodies have emerged from Government. As some of them have served their purpose, they lie in the governmental universe like abandoned satellites and pieces of space debris that no one can quite manage to get rid of.

David Davies: Will my hon. Friend join me in saying that Governments of left and right over the past few years have called for an end to the quango state? One hopes, therefore, that Members in all parts of the House will give their utmost support to the Bill, which will allow us to get rid of some of the space debris that is no longer required.

Elizabeth Truss: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), who said that such bodies are often set up because Government believe that something ought to be done and to give some plausible deniability to difficult and controversial decisions that the Government do not want to own. It is only right that we should make it easier to get rid of bodies that no longer serve their purpose and that lie in a twilight zone, subject neither to proper democratic accountability nor to the rigours of the market, with consumers having no choice on whether to use them.
	Quango chiefs are often paid more than senior civil servants. The chief executive of Partnerships for Schools is paid £215,000 a year for the botched job that was
	Building Schools for the Future, the chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council is paid £230,000 a year for administering university places, and the chief executive of the London Probation Trust is paid £240,000 a year. There are other bodies that rely heavily on Government funds but are not actually quangos, and their chief executives and directors general can command even higher salaries. For example, the director-general of the BBC is paid £615,000, the vice chancellor of Birmingham university is paid £390,000 and Network Rail’s chief executive, whose new salary we do not know, was previously paid £1.25 million, even though that relied mainly on income streams that come from the Government.

Gavin Shuker: Of the six bodies that the hon. Lady has just mentioned, will she explain which are in the Bill?

Elizabeth Truss: The point I am making is that we have a huge universe out there, which this Bill seeks to address. We are seeking to reduce the number of bodies and make them more accountable. My speech is about the importance of accountability, which the Bill lays out.
	I believe that organisations and people that take real risks and put their homes and businesses on the line deserve real rewards and to make a profit. That is what motivates people in our economy and helps allocate resources. It is the invisible hand that has served this country well over generations. I think that we need more honest profit in this country, as that is what will get us out of the hole we are in. We will not get out of that hole by spending more money on bodies for which the rewards are many, but the risks are few. My complaint about executives in the twilight zone is that they do not risk their own money and instead have a technocratic role. I think that their maximum pay should be that of a senior civil servant, and the most senior civil servant in the Home Office is paid £200,000. Private companies in competitive markets carry out research, investigate their customer loyalty and try to get people to buy their products. They have a real market and real consumers to respond to.
	I am pleased to see the Bill go ahead. We are finally seeing the bonfire of the quangos that the previous Prime Minister and those before him talked about. It is of course difficult to make these things happen, so I am pleased that the Government have persisted. I want to talk about two late and lamented quangos that will disappear, the Legal Services Commission and the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency. The Legal Services Commission presides over one of the most expensive legal aid systems in the world, costing £120 million. It was attacked by the National Audit Office for failing to hold lawyers to account and by lawyers for not understanding what they do.
	The QCDA presided over some of the worst quality exams in this country and an incoherent curriculum. Of its eight board members, only one has been a teacher and none has higher education experience. The rest were professional quangocrats who created such abominations as the A-level in the use of mathematics, which was of a far lower standard than the actual mathematics A-level, and the pick and mix of modular qualifications that has been developed in this country.
	We should compare the QCDA’s approach with what the Department for Education is now doing on the curriculum review: having public discussions, making the decisions publicly accountable and being open to scrutiny and accountable to Back Benchers during Education questions. That is far preferable to those decisions being taken behind closed doors in a quango. Ministers can be lobbied and the finances of the organisations can be scrutinised, and we do not hear this nonsense about commercial confidentiality.
	Too many bodies have been making decisions that do not have due regard for electors or consumers. These organisations have little incentive to save money, and they have high rewards where the job is essentially technocratic. We should have a system where no public money is spent without proper accountability and there are no excessive rewards without taking a risk. This Bill is the right step forward in reducing the size of the twilight zone that has been created in British politics. I hope that the Government use this opportunity to bring even more of the space debris out of the twilight zone and into the sunlight.

Kevan Jones: I rise to return to an issue that has been raised—the role of the chief coroner. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), I congratulate Bridget Prentice, who steered the legislation through when she was the Minister responsible,. She did a fantastic job and deserves credit for it. The chief coroner’s office was going to be created to improve national standards and to monitor compliance with what is, as we have heard, an archaic and shambolic system. It would also have introduced the role of medical examiners, who would be able to scrutinise medical certificates, and ensured, for the first time, a bespoke appeals system to save people the lengthy expense of going through judicial reviews.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East said, it is important to state how we got to this point—it was not by accident. He referred to the Luce review, which reported on death certificates and improvements in the service. He also mentioned the very important Shipman inquiry chaired by Dame Janet Smith. If we agree to what the Government propose in their amendments to take out what the Lords put into the Bill, we will go against Dame Janet Smith’s recommendation, as stated on page 492 of the report:
	“The body which is to provide that leadership and support must be seen to be independent of Government. In my view, it would no longer be satisfactory for the coroner service to be administered from within a Government Department.”
	However, that is what is being proposed in place of the chief coroner, and that is not acceptable.
	The Government have changed their position. Today I looked at the Hansard report of the debate on the Second Reading of the Coroners and Justice Bill in 2009, when the current Attorney-General said:
	“We agree that reform of the coroners’ system is long overdue.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 46.]
	The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who was then the Member for Hornchurch, said:
	“We all welcome the establishment of the chief coroner”
	and
	“the modernisation of the coroner’s powers of…investigation”.—[Official Report, 26 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 111.]
	He said that that was well overdue. In his winding-up speech, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) said:
	“Reform is, therefore, long overdue…I welcome the creation of the posts of chief coroner and deputy chief coroner.”—[Official Report, 26 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 117.]
	So what has changed since? The Minister, in opening the debate, said that it was all about money. If it is, then the Government need first to provide the costs of setting up and running the chief coroner’s office. They seem to miss the point regarding taking these functions in-house when they say that no cost is involved in that process at all. That is clearly not the case. The figures that have been suggested include about £1 million a year as a contingency for what, we do not know. The only thing that has changed is the fact that the Government are using this argument about cost. If they are going to make the big mistake of deleting the post of chief coroner, they will have to justify every single penny of costs, and the civil servants in the Ministry of Justice will have to justify every single thing they do in terms of costs.
	Clearly, we will not get what Dame Janet wanted, and what the Conservative Government and the Liberal Democrats in the previous Parliament wanted, which is an improvement in the coroner service. That is an opportunity missed. We will still be stuck with the system that we have had for many centuries, which is not only not fit for purpose but outdated and bureaucratic. It also leads to delays in the hearing of coroners inquests, which is unacceptable.
	The Royal British Legion has stated that it does not support this reform and it argues strongly for the role of chief coroner. It is also important to record that the organisation, Cardiac Risk in the Young—I chair an all-party group on the issue—is vociferous in arguing that what is needed to improve the coroners service and the inquest service for the families of young people who die of sudden cardiac arrest is the role of the chief coroner. We need to improve the system and stop the untimely delays for those who die in action serving this country. It is all right for the Government to say that they support the covenant; that needs to be supported in practice by establishing the role of the chief coroner. I agree totally with my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) that the Government will be forced to back down on this issue. I suggest that they do it sooner rather than later.
	In closing, although I do not usually agree with Viscount Slim, he summed up the issue well in the Lords last week in the debate on the Armed Forces Bill, when he said that the deletion of the position of chief coroner is
	“mean, short-sighted and rather stupid.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 July 2011; Vol. 729, c. 299.]

Dominic Raab: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate.
	Two key objectives for the coalition are to tackle irresponsible Government spending and to deliver reform of the public sector. The Bill will help to achieve both those aims.
	It is worth saying at the outset that some public bodies do important work and are a necessary response to the complexity of modern government. However, they have become massively overused. When the Government came to office, there were 901 quangos. In 2009, executive quangos alone—those that take decisions and do not just advise—employed 111,000 people at a cost to the taxpayer of £38 billion. Governments of all political persuasions share the blame for adding to this problem, but the previous Government certainly added to it in abundance. Funding for executive quangos leapt by 59% between 1997 and 2008.
	It is right that the Government are cracking down on the inflation of the quango state. They are doing so first and foremost through greater transparency in the exercise of public functions and powers. In the current economic climate, in which value for money is even more imperative than usual, transparency and ministerial accountability are especially vital. Government policy is also welcome because abolishing and merging quangos and cutting their programmes will save £30 billion over the spending review period, as Ministers have reiterated yet again today. Given the difficult spending decisions that have inevitably been made elsewhere, it is essential to streamline Government as much as possible. Nowhere is that more important than in the sphere of quangos.
	It makes sense to merge bodies with comparable functions, as set out in clause 2. For example, the proposed merger of the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission is designed to deliver more effective regulation. It will also realise annual cost savings of between £3.5 million and £6.8 million. It is right, as Members across the House have done, to look at and question the practical impact of these changes. On that particular merger, will the Minister say any more in his winding-up speech about the institutional separation of powers between the initial investigation and the final enforcement decision? I have spoken to a number of competition lawyers and experts about that, and it is a key feature of the current competition regime. How will it be retained in the combined competition and markets authority?
	The majority of savings will come not from mergers, but from cutting waste. Some quangos have been guilty of the most appalling waste of taxpayers’ resources. The right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) made a spirited defence of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. However, auditors have refused to sign off its accounts for three years running. Last year, it breached Government pay guidelines and spent more than £1 million without due authorisation. It presided over a botched website launch, which eventually saw almost £1 million written off. Members do not need to take my word for that. The National Audit Office damningly concluded that
	“there is little general financial understanding or competence in the organisation, and that many managers have limited experience of the effective management of public money.”
	I discovered that for myself last week when I was informed through a parliamentary answer that a single agency worker at the commission was paid an astonishing salary of £200,000 last year. How can that possibly be
	justified? In the light of that, it is right that the commission is listed in schedule 5 to the Bill, allowing its functions to be modified or transferred by the Government, subject of course to the consultation on its future.
	Other quangos that are to be scrapped in the Bill should probably never have been created in the first place, and I make no apology for listing as chief among them the eight regional development agencies, a pet project of the last Government that proved an expensive failure. The RDAs were established in 1999 but did little to stimulate growth. Job creation in the five years before their creation was higher than in the five years that followed despite the continued boom economic conditions. They also failed to reduce regional imbalances, which was one of their main aims, as figures from the Office for National Statistics amply demonstrate.
	The RDAs made a range of poor spending decisions. Between 2007 and 2009, for example, 62% of all grants went to predominantly public sector organisations, while the trade unions were awarded more than £3 million. That is not a spending pattern that inspires confidence, nor is it one to drive a private sector-driven economic recovery. The RDAs will not be missed by those trying to drive jobs and growth in the private sector, especially as scrapping them will save three quarters of a billion pounds in administration costs alone between now and 2015. It is high time to shed light on quangos’ activities and cut down on waste.
	Looking ahead, I also welcome the commitment made by the Minister for the Cabinet Office in his statement in October to triennial reviews of the purpose of the remaining quangos. They will be an important part of ensuring that the number of quangos does not balloon again in future, but that provision for them does not appear in the Bill. I ask the Minister to explain why it will not be made a statutory requirement. Equally, Ministers have previously talked about a role for the Public Administration Committee in vetting any new quangos. It would be interesting to know what the status of that proposal is.
	Ultimately and overall, the Bill is a big step in the right direction towards strengthening transparency and accountability while delivering savings for the taxpayer, and it has my full support.

Jack Dromey: In that great hymn to England, “Jerusalem”, we celebrate our “green and pleasant land”, and our England is indeed a country characterised by a beautiful coast and countryside, from the craggy cliffs of Cornwall through the heart of England to Hadrian’s wall. Although we celebrate it, that beauty historically concealed an ugly reality of rural poverty, of exploitation of farm workers and of an industry—agriculture—that is the most dangerous in Britain. At its most obscene, there is the modern-day slavery practised by ruthless gangmasters.
	Labour is a friend of our countryside. That is why we fought to defend our forests and why we amended the Localism Bill to protect our national heritage. We believe in a fair deal for our countryside. That is why we have supported the work of Rural Advocate. We believe in fairness in the countryside—fair treatment for the backbone of the rural economy, the farm workers and those who work for gangmasters.
	For a hundred years agricultural workers fought against exploitation, then in 1948 we saw the establishment of the Agricultural Wages Board. It has set standards in the industry for 60 years and more on pay, sick pay, overtime, bereavement leave, protection for under-16s, apprenticeships and accommodation, and it has evolved to meet the modern methods of agriculture with a system of six grades. They are settled and sensible arrangements, covering 140,000 workers in the countryside and ensuring both fairness and fair competition. It is an historic institution that not even Mrs Thatcher dared to abolish, but now that vital voice is to be silenced. Inevitably, that will be followed by a race to the bottom in the countryside.
	A second vital voice is to be silenced. The Rural Advocate, an independent voice for villages, is being abolished by a Government who preach localism but intend to establish in its place a rural communities policy unit based in Whitehall.
	There is a third voice that is to be muzzled. Recent disturbing developments and the powers contained in the Bill threaten the future of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. I co-ordinated the coalition of support that brought the GLA into existence—a remarkable all-party coalition, including, from plough to plate, the National Farmers Union and the supermarkets. All in the coalition were determined to work together so that never again would we see another incident such as that in Morecambe bay, where 22 young Chinese cockle pickers died a terrible death in the freezing sands, ringing home to their distraught families to say farewell.

David Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously trying to suggest that that terrible tragedy results from the current Government’s policies, when they were not the Government at the time? Was it not actually the fault of the previous Government’s lax immigration policy, which this Government are doing everything they possibly can to tighten up?

Jack Dromey: However a person is in a country, they do not deserve to die a death like those young Chinese did.
	The GLA has been an outstanding success. Together with the president of the NFU and on behalf of the industry, I appointed its chairman, Paul Whitehouse, a former chief constable, under whom the GLA has tackled some of the worst abuse in the world of work in the countryside. For example, intelligence-led operations with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs recovered millions in unpaid tax, and the GLA worked with the police to put away a gangmaster armed with a gun. With others, the GLA has combated money laundering and tax avoidance, and it now combats human trafficking. Paul Whitehouse and the GLA worked with the good, tackled the bad and made examples of the worst, driving out of business disgraceful rogues, and raising standards across the industry, supported by the Association of Labour Providers and reputable employers, who welcomed at last not just fairness, but fair competition.
	The Government have refused to reappoint Paul Whitehouse. A new chair, with no history in enforcement, has been appointed. She says that she is on a steep learning curve and that she will have to learn all about the sector, and she has downplayed the role of enforcement of the law. I fear for the future.
	Finally, the abolitions of the Agricultural Wages Board and the Rural Advocate, and the threat to the GLA, are, taken together, an attack on the countryside. Our green and pleasant land should not be scarred by exploitation. For the powerful to strip the vulnerable of protection is shameful. That is why the Opposition will oppose the Bill and stand up both for our countryside and for fair treatment in our countryside.

Richard Harrington: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) mentioned the tragedy of the Morecambe bay cockle pickers and, in his opinion, the disastrous consequences of losing the GLA and other organisations in rural England. However, I do not understand Opposition Members and members of the previous Government. They have spoken a lot about saving money from quangos. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) spoke of £500 million, which the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), confirmed earlier. On the one hand, Opposition Members accept that we need to cut because money is being lost, but yet almost every organisation that is mentioned seems to be a front-line service that it would be a disgrace to remove. I find that a difficult contradiction.
	I must tell the House—and in fear of Opposition Members’ mirth—that I have not worked in a quango or experienced them on close terms. However, I do know about organisations. Organisations, be they in the private sector, the public sector or the quasi-public sector, have certain things in common. One is that they all started with perfectly good intentions, but they have a habit of growing like Topsy, until they get to the stage when people think, “Well, how can we possibly do without them?” That happens a lot in the private sector, and it has clearly happened in the public sector. Whether we are talking about new management in a business or a new Government running the country and the public sector, the feeling is the same: when times get difficult, measures have to be taken to reduce the number of organisations. It is well known in management, and there is management speak for it—management cuts, rationalisation and so on. There seems to be consensus on that.
	The shadow Minister said that every Government needed to reassess the role of these organisations. In her view, it needed to be done “systematically over time”, but I am not sure whether that means two years, five years, 10 years or longer. The fact is that a new Government have entered office, carried out a comprehensive review and decided to proceed in this way predominantly—as far as I can see—on the grounds of accountability and transparency, with the peripheral object of saving money. I do not understand her logic in saying that it can be done over a lengthy period. These organisations are growing up all the time.
	The right hon. Lady seemed to agree that measures have to be taken to rationalise the number of bodies. However, I want to move on to the questions of accountability and transparency, which are the main thrust of the debate. There are arguments about whether organisations are better controlled directly—from within
	Departments—or indirectly. I have experience in Watford of bodies that have been spun off and that are effectively quangos. For example, the Community Housing Trust, which was part of the local council, is now a third-party organisation and quasi-controlled by the council. In that respect, it is much the same as a Government quango. Management teams grow up, outside consultants are used all over the place and very high salaries—in many cases higher than in the private sector—are paid, but I have not seen the accountability. Having a couple of non-executives on a board does not mean accountability and responsibility in the same way that direct control by the Government or—as in the case of my local authority example—a council does.
	The idea, once mooted for quangos, that some organisations work better independently—so that Ministers cannot meddle—was admirable, but I have not seen accountability. In fact, I have seen the contrary. I would like to use regional development agencies as an example because I have experience of them from my business life. It seemed to me that not only were they not accountable to, or directly controlled by, the Government—they had an independent board and claimed some sort of independence—but because their funding was controlled by Governments, they could say to their consumers, who effectively were businesses in the area, “You don’t own us. We’re independent of you and funded by the Government.” For the life of me, I cannot see how running an RDA as a quango is an excellent way of running an organisation when compared with direct involvement from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills or with the local enterprise partnerships. The latter are at least community organisations in business terms. I very much support the Bill.

Mark Lazarowicz: The hon. Gentleman is making some interesting points. However, does he not see the apparent contradiction between his theory of greater state control and bringing everything into the centre on the one hand, and the policies of the big society and handing power down to people on the other?

Richard Harrington: Yes, I think that the hon. Gentleman has made a valid point. Some organisations are much better off in the voluntary sector and as part of the big society. It is a question of assessing, as the Cabinet Office has done, which organisations are suitable for which sector. My argument is that the quango is neither one thing nor the other. However, I agree with him; he made a valid intervention.

John McDonnell: I want briefly to make two simple but related points. Elected Governments—even unelected coalitions—have the right to determine the administrative arrangements they consider best suited to implementing their policies. However, there is such a thing as good governance. As the Public Administration Committee’s original report set out, good governance involves undertaking a proper review of structures, consulting the organisations and individuals involved, clarifying objectives and then having good, clear drafting of the legislation.
	The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) is not in his place, but I think that he hid his light behind a bushel, because last December’s PAC report
	was one of the most hard-hitting reports that I have ever seen in this House. It referred to the review process as “poorly managed”, and said that “no meaningful consultation” had been undertaken, that the criteria and tests set for the reform were “not clearly defined” and that the Bill was “badly drafted”, so it is no wonder it received a mauling in the House of Lords. In addition, the Committee said—I have never seen this sentence in a Select Committee report before—that the Government had
	“failed to recognise the realities of the modern world.”
	One element of that was the need for thorough consultation, a point that I want to discuss in relation to the staff.
	Whatever the structures of government, whatever they determine those structures should be and whatever reforms to those structures they want to undertake, any Government will need an essential ingredient: well trained, professionally competent and motivated staff. However, in this Bill the staff are barely mentioned or considered, if at all. I chair the PCS trade union group, which involves Members of all parties in this House. The PCS has 30,000 members in non-departmental bodies, many thousands of whom are affected by this Bill. Many of those staff are facing compulsory redundancy, forced relocation, a deleterious impact on their terms and conditions and their pensions, an almost certain increase in their work loads and the end of job security—all in a situation of absolute uncertainty. The most common thing that I have heard from members of staff whom I have met in those bodies is that they are completely in the dark about their futures. There is a complete lack of clarity about what role their organisations and they as individual professionals will be playing, and they are worried about the future of the services that they deliver.

Jon Trickett: Will my hon. Friend confirm that redundancies are taking place now, before the Government have even taken these legal powers, which is damaging the capacity of those bodies to perform what continue to be their statutory duties?

John McDonnell: I can confirm that. Redundancies are taking place, and there is near chaos in some organisations, not only because of jobs being lost and redundancies being forced on people, but in the organisation of the services that they deliver. A number of staff are worried about the impact that the proposals will have on the users of their services. I refer in particular to those who manage the independent living fund and the 300 workers involved on the Youth Justice Board, whose jobs are likely to go. Morale is understandably at rock bottom in those services, so the important thing is consultation. However, I see that consultation with staff unions is not even listed in the Bill.
	Also, there is an agreement stemming from the last Government—an agreement that I thought this Government had signed up to—on TUPE. The Cabinet Office statement of protocols adopted by the last Government and inherited by this Government, which I thought this Government had also signed up to, states that where TUPE does not apply—for example, in the transfer of staff into the public sector, which includes most of the bodies in this Bill—an explicit reference should be added to the Bill. That is the agreement that was signed up to, but all that this Bill contains is a reference in clause 24 to transferring people on conditions similar to TUPE. The legal advice provided to the
	union is blindingly obvious: conditions that are similar to TUPE are not TUPE. Therefore, a whole range of conditions of service and protections that staff now enjoy will be put at risk. I believe that this is an act of bad faith on the part of the Government. The least that they could do now is add TUPE to the Bill. It was included by the last Government in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, and by this Government in the Localism Bill. In that way, staff gained some security for their futures.
	Let me conclude. There is a view in many of those bodies that there is near chaos when it comes to what the future will hold for the staff and what the implications for delivering the service will be.

Richard Harrington: Assuming for a moment that the employment side of the Bill was altered as the hon. Gentleman suggests—actually, it will probably not be—would he then be satisfied with the new arrangements, or would he prefer the existing bodies to perform their functions as they are?

John McDonnell: The hon. Gentleman might not have heard me say earlier—I might not have made myself clear enough—that when a new Government are elected, they are perfectly entitled to introduce the administrative arrangements that they think appropriate for the implementation of their policies. There will be debate in the Chamber about the rights and wrongs of those administrative arrangements. As we have heard today, there are sharp differences of opinion between Members on either side of the House on the Youth Justice Board, the coroners service and the Commission for Equality and Human Rights.
	There should, however, be one common feature across all parties, and that relates to the protection of the staff. They should not suffer as a result of the changing whims of Governments or of the changing directions of political parties’ policies. They should at least be afforded the opportunity of full consultation and of the legal protections that have been provided in the past, specifically through TUPE. I very much regret that there is no commitment to TUPE in the Bill. The commitment in clause 24 to something similar to TUPE will not give the staff the security that they need. Any Government, of whatever political hue, should have respect for the civil servants who serve them. On that basis, I urge the Government to think again about this issue.
	The Cabinet Office Statement of Practice on Staff Transfers in the Public Sector—COSOP—principles were signed up to by the previous Government, and by this one, and they have been referred to at length in some of our debates. They are now being broken by the Bill. That has been interpreted by the trade unions as an act of bad faith, which is contributing to the present poor industrial relations climate in the public services. This is a critical issue. I welcome the opportunity for the PCS parliamentary group to meet Ministers to discuss how we can amend the legislation in Committee, so that when it comes back to the House on Report, we can debate the real principles behind the Bill, rather than being encumbered by this attack on the staff.

Gavin Shuker: I rise to speak about a couple of the bodies concerned with rural communities that were mentioned by my hon. Friend
	the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who is no longer in his place. It was interesting to hear Conservative Members expressing disdain for his view that Labour had made a valuable contribution to rural communities during the last Government. That goes to the heart of why I want to talk about these bodies. It is perhaps inevitable, as Labour Members tend to represent the more urban seats and Conservative Members the more rural ones, that a certain reputation in that regard is picked up. I fear, however, that this Government will run down the huge amount of good will felt towards them in rural communities if they ignore the question of the Agricultural Wages Board and the Commission for Rural Communities. Taken together, those are very important organisations.
	I have some sympathy for the Government’s position in wanting to change the constitutional arrangements of certain bodies, but the Minister himself said earlier that it is difficult to maintain an overview of every single body that a Bill of this size deals with. I hope that the Government will be willing to listen on this particular point, because rural communities run the risk of getting a very raw deal.

Richard Harrington: As I understand it, agricultural workers are protected by the same rules as everyone else. The minimum wage, which the Labour Government brought in and which, I must confess, has proved very successful, would protect agricultural workers just as it would any other kind of worker. Can the hon. Gentleman think of any reason why one group of workers should be treated differently from the others in this regard?

Gavin Shuker: The hon. Gentleman has asked a straightforward and honest question. I shall go into this in more detail a little later, but one reason would be that agricultural workers are more likely to find themselves in a changeable labour market. The Agricultural Wages Board takes into account six bands for agricultural workers, and only 20% of the people who receive funding from their employer that is moderated by the board receive a level around about the minimum wage. Essentially, we could end up bringing the other 80% down to that level in a wage race to the bottom. Let me explain why it is important to take the special character of rural communities into account.

Guto Bebb: I have heard this terminology of a “race to the bottom” used twice by Labour Members. Was not the decision of the previous Labour Government to allow unfettered immigration from eastern Europe another case of contributing to a race to the bottom when it came to wages in the agricultural sector?

Gavin Shuker: We need a framework in which all workers are treated on an equal level. The hon. Gentleman makes an astute point—that in a market without any regulation, people will work for the smallest amount of money. If we had more time, I could discuss the issue at greater length, but the hon. Gentleman’s point deserves more scrutiny.
	The Commission for Rural Communities has been an independent advocate since the time of Lloyd George—surely a reason why Conservative Members suggest that
	it is well beyond its time—but we should bear in mind the important point that the cost of living can be 10% or 20% greater in rural communities than in urban areas. If I were a Minister sat on the Government Front Bench and I wanted to get on with implementing my programmes—something would have happened for that to be the case—I would probably not want a very strong independent voice for rural communities. I think that that is a shame, because when we release people to become strong advocates of their own communities, it serves us all well.
	The Rural Advocate appointed by Tony Blair in 2000, Lord Cameron of Dillington said:
	“All too often—in fact, almost always—urban civil servants ignore or are unaware of difficulties of delivery in the countryside…It would be a tragedy if the countryside were to lose that independent voice.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 March 2011; Vol. 726, c. 767-8.]
	I think he put it very well. It is easy for us here in Westminster to ignore some of the major problems that rural communities face—in housing, broadband and public transport, for example. How do people in the countryside, especially the young, get to work? Those are real issues. I believe that the Commission for Rural Communities continues to have a valuable voice to articulate—independently of Government but to the Government. I also believe that the changes advocated in the Bill will not strengthen that independent rural voice, which, as I said before, has been around for about 100 years.
	The hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) anticipated some of my points. The Agricultural Wages Board is key to ensuring that the additional cost of living that rural communities face can be met by showing a greater responsibility to those who work in the countryside. The board was put in place after world war two. That might be used as an argument to get rid of it, but it is really a poor argument for dismissing the present board. It represents a partnership among the industry, the unions, landowners and all interested parties in the countryside. Those groups come together and a deal has to be hammered out on the different wage bands, just as we have to hammer out deals in this place.

Richard Harrington: When the Agricultural Wages Board came into being in the late 1940s, lots of other industries were similarly regulated with their own boards. Most of those have gone—not just as a result of Conservative Governments but by general consensus. I do not understand why the Agricultural Wages Board is different.

Gavin Shuker: I appreciate the point, but additional costs of living and the ability for different groups of workers to be exploited within that industry are relevant. I believe that those require us not to weaken the regulations, but to keep them in place.
	Let me offer two further specific points about the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board. Without the AWB, each individual business will have to negotiate its own individual terms and conditions. Far from reducing red tape for farmers, we will increase it. Many of them just want to get on and farm; many just want to run their business; many are not experts in the area of human resources or employment law.
	Secondly, without the AWB, I believe we will see a dramatic decrease in wages across the industry. As I said before, only about 20% of those regulated by the AWB receive round about the minimum wage; there are six bands above it. The industry needs a sense of career progression and a credible ladder of opportunity in order to attract more people into it to strengthen food security. The Minister will obviously say that the minimum wage remains a safeguard. That is true, but I believe that there will be a race to the bottom without the AWB. The Bill will restrict the amount that can be charged for accommodation, an area in which people may be exploited. It will also affect agricultural sick pay, which is very important to manual labourers.
	I sympathise with the Government’s wish to make reforms, which is their right. They will present more proposals, and they have already made amendments to the Bill, such as the removal of the clauses relating to forests. However, they risk making a serious impact on rural communities that are already suffering. For that reason, I ask them not to poison the well from which they draw much of their support, and to reconsider their position.

Guto Bebb: I will be brief, but I want to say a little about S4C. As the House may know, the Welsh Assembly is responsible for most of the quangos in Wales, but S4C is one Welsh organisation that will be affected by the Bill.
	I well understand the strength of feeling about the Bill. I am possibly the only Member present this evening whose office has been vandalised as a result of it. Members of the Welsh Language Society decided to take direct action because of their fears for the future of S4C. However, I want to record the fact that, along with the other members of the Welsh Affairs Committee, I am fully committed to its future. Our report demonstrated strong cross-party agreement that, notwithstanding concerns about some elements of the Bill, the funding settlement could offer it a way forward.
	Let me explain why I think the Bill is important. Several Members have referred to accountability. One of the problems that we experience with quangos such as S4C is a distinct lack of accountability. After all, they receive a huge amount of taxpayer funding. Last August, for example, the chief executive of S4C was dismissed without notice. At the time she was earning about £160,000 a year: £160,000 a year of taxpayers’ money, and a salary that most people would consider extremely high in a Welsh context. As yet, we have not been told why she lost her position. We need to ensure that such organisations are accountable to, and respond to, the taxpayer.
	As I have said, I believe that the funding arrangements that the Government are introducing offer S4C a way forward. The funding is being reduced from £100 million to about £83 million a year, which, miraculously, was described by the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) as a reduction of 94%. Members may wish to try to explain how a reduction from £100 million to £83 million equates to a 94% reduction, but I am at a loss.
	I believe that the link between S4C and the BBC presents S4C with a future. Indeed, the BBC’s experience and its ability to provide base funding for the channel,
	coupled with the skills and expertise of the independent television sector in Wales, give it the chance of a prosperous future. I am confident that, despite all the concerns that have been raised about the changes proposed in the Bill, there is good will in the DCMS and in Government generally, and a real possibility of building a new and more accountable S4C that will serve the people of Wales well.

Mark Lazarowicz: I want to speak about just one of the Government’s proposals: the suggestion that the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee may be abolished. As I am sure the House knows, the consultation on the committee’s future has not been completed. In fact, it will not end until 21 July. I hope that the Government will confirm that, although the Minister has said he is minded to abolish the committee, a genuine consultation process is taking place. I hope it will also be confirmed that if that process reveals a negative view of the Government’s proposal, they will reconsider it.
	I make the case for this committee to be retained because for some time I have been interested in how we can make public transport as accessible as possible to people with disabilities. As it happens, one of my constituents, Alan Rees, is the secretary of the Scottish Accessible Transport Alliance. He has campaigned on this issue for many years and has provided me with some powerful arguments against the closure of the committee, which I hope the Minister will ensure are considered by his Department and his colleagues in the Department for Transport. Mr Rees has said that the continuation of the committee
	“in its present form is vitally important. It is a statutory body made up of disabled people forming a majority. It has been behind most of the recent improvements in transport access and mobility for disabled people but there is still much to do. Its loss or reduction in status and influence would be a savage blow.”
	It is a cross-border body, although some transport matters in Scotland are devolved. Issues to do with international travel, travel between Scotland and England, long-distance rail and many aspects of road travel, and many other issues are still reserved matters. The committee therefore plays an important role. That is why there is a lot of concern about its proposed closure.
	Over the years, the committee has produced many reports and recommendations, and, importantly, they have resulted in action. In that regard, I would refer to the committee’s work on low-floor buses, its advice to taxi drivers, its promotion of disability awareness training for transport staff and, perhaps most importantly, its efforts to ensure that the consumer view—the view of the disabled traveller—is ascertained and then taken into account by Government at all levels and, indeed, by transport operators.
	That serves to highlight two crucial aspects of the current committee. First, it has a right to be consulted; its views must be listened to. Secondly, it is a voice for disabled people themselves. As I have said, there is a majority of disabled people on the committee, which gives it authority and credibility, and an understanding of the issues, and I believe the Government, and specifically the Department for Transport, have drawn great benefit from that. If the committee is abolished, there is a great risk that the voice of disabled people on transport
	issues will be weakened. I therefore hope that the Government will think again about their proposals to wind-up the committee, and give proper consideration to the findings of the consultation process when that is completed.
	If the Government decide to go ahead and abolish the committee, I hope that the alternative arrangements they set up will not result in there being just an occasional meeting with stakeholders, which is one suggestion, or arrangements that lead to the employment of highly paid consultants to take on the work of volunteers on the committee. I also hope they give disabled people and their organisations a genuine voice, as they are entitled to be consulted on major transport issues and issues of concern to the disabled traveller.
	I hope that the Government will give those assurances and, above all, I hope they will confirm that they are open to the consultation process producing different recommendations. I trust that there will be a recognition on both sides of the House that the Government should take on board these interests and concerns, and that if they are going to abolish this committee, they need to come up with a genuine and acceptable alternative.

Jon Trickett: This has been an interesting debate, but at certain times Members walking into the Chamber might have wondered whether they had accidentally walked into a discussion on Welsh affairs, because so much of the debate focused on S4C—a mystery to me as an MP representing a Yorkshire constituency until I was allocated to this Bill. I can assure the House that by the time we reach Committee stage, I will be as expert as everybody else. However, the real reason for the contributions from so many Welsh Members might be a certain boundary review that will be taking place in Wales in due course, but perhaps that is idle speculation.
	The sub-debate about S4C was ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones). Other contributions were made by the hon. Members for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). They all made interesting speeches, although it seemed to me that some of the points made by Government Members were hardly supportive of the Government’s position on S4C. The Opposition can assure the House that this matter will be explored in great detail in Committee.
	Many other matters were raised, often with great authority, including the Government proposal to transform the chief coroner post. Very significant contributions were made on that matter by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). There is a significant problem with the Government’s proposals, which suggest that the coronial service, in part at least, should be made responsible to the Lord Chancellor, who, as we know, is a member of the Government. From time to
	time, a death that has been examined by a coroner may have been caused, in part at least, by the Government’s actions—we can all think of examples where a Government failure contributed to the death of a fallen hero in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and so on. If the coroner has to report to the Lord Chancellor, would that not immediately raise questions about the independence of the coronial service in investigating the deaths? Deaths at war are as tragic as any other, and they obviously involve people who were fighting for our country. Those people are entitled to an independent coronial service, and I do not believe that the Government’s proposals give us that independence.
	Powerful points were also made strongly on behalf of rural communities by my hon. Friends the Members for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). They discussed not only the beauty of our rural countryside, but the need for fairness. The Government are proposing to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales, and that retrograde step, again, needs to be debated very carefully in Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East also spoke about youth justice, on the basis of his great experience, and the House listened carefully to the point he made.
	What was striking about the debate was the fact that few Government Members were wholly in favour of the Bill and that they did not make the case for the Bill in the terms used by the Minister for the Cabinet Office. He made a case on the basis of democratic accountability—I shall address that in a moment—but his right hon. and hon. Friends largely chose to make an argument on financial grounds. They said that we should simply be taking an axe and making financial cuts to the service, irrespective of whether the service being provided is good or bad. For example, the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) referred to the financial imperative to cut services. We accept that there is a degree of financial imperative, particularly in relation to waste, where that is identified. However, I do not believe that the argument made by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) that we should abolish any quango where even a small amount of waste has been abolished necessarily provides the correct answer—notably, the Minister for the Cabinet Office did not make that case.
	The hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) gave an extraordinary motive for cutting quangos, basing her argument on inequality of pay. Those of us on the left, who have long argued for greater equality, welcome her as a recruit, but her case was that we should abolish quangos on the basis of the size of the chief executive’s salary, and that is a bizarre argument. The hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) was the star of the show. He began his speech by saying that he had no experience whatsoever of any quango, ever. He felt that that gave him the basis for making a speech to say that quangos should immediately be reformed, abolished and so on.
	The Government rested their case on the need for greater democratic accountability, and we agree that the quango state should be tackled on those grounds. However, they would be well advised to listen carefully to the case made by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who chairs the Public Administration Committee. He pointed out that in a modern society
	accountability takes many forms. I have just discussed the coronial service and it may be that rather than the coroners being made accountable to the Lord Chancellor, as the Government would have it, they should be accountable to the relatives of the dead. In that sense, I agree entirely with the point made by the Public Administration Committee.
	Considering that it dealt with such important bodies, the process the Government entered into was incredibly rushed. There was little or no consultation in advance with the interested parties, with the bodies themselves or even with Parliament. The reform of these bodies through proper legislative processes is clearly one thing that the Government are entitled to do, but instead, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), they are already proceeding effectively to abolish or at least to weaken through underhand administrative methods those very organisations that the Bill is intended to reform, even before it has gone through Parliament. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, for example, has already had its budget cut by 68%, yet it still exists in law. The staff numbers have been cut by 66%. Only one in three staff remain in the EHRC yet it still has statutory duties imposed on it by Parliament until this Bill becomes law. That is no way for a Government to proceed. It completely ignores the need for parliamentary assent and is once again reflective of a Government who are unwilling to listen or consult.
	What we have here is a Government who are simply not listening, so much so that that they are not allowing witnesses to appear before the Public Bill Committee as part of the Bill’s scrutiny. We were told that this would be a listening Government. Why then will they not allow witnesses to appear before the Public Bill Committee when the Bill goes upstairs? The Government do not want to hear the voices of the Royal British Legion, who will defend the rights of fallen heroes to a proper inquest. They do not want to hear the voices of low paid workers in the agricultural industry who will be affected by the changes to the Agricultural Wages Board. They will not allow the voices of witnesses from the disabled community, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), to be heard on the EHRC or the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which is to be abolished. We will therefore oppose what we regard as a gross misuse of Government authority in seeking to prevent witnesses appearing before the Committee. I therefore urge the House to reject the programme motion, which does that.
	On top of all those things, the Bill fundamentally alters ministerial powers to control quangos. It will concentrate far more authority in the hands of the relevant Ministers, who could merge bodies, transfer bodies or even abolish them without proper reference to Parliament and without listening to witness statements. The costings on which the Bill relies are also riddled with incompetence. The Minister for the Cabinet Office has made outlandish claims in The Sun newspaper that are totally unfounded. We have tabled freedom of information requests and parliamentary questions that show that rather than the £30 billion he claimed, the actual savings will be a fraction of that: £2.6 billion at most. When we considered individual Departments, we found the Government’s claim was often twice as high
	as the savings that they will make. Our research, for example, demonstrated that although the Government claimed that they would save £18 million from the Department for Work and Pensions, they will save less than £500,000.
	Finally, the proposals will have a human cost both to the millions of people who receive services from the quangos and to thousands of employees, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred. Let me ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, a straightforward question, which I would like him to answer in his reply. What will happen to those whose jobs may be transferred into the private sector, the voluntary sector and elsewhere in the public service? What will happen to their rights? Does he envisage that their rights under TUPE will be properly protected, as they ought to be?
	Hon. Members’ contributions today have revealed that the Government have not considered staff, have not listened to the users of services, have not produced proper costings and certainly have not listened to the millions of vulnerable people who will be affected by the Government’s actions if this Bill is passed. The Government do not realise that when they are taking decisions, they need to see the big picture—on which we can agree: that quangos should be reduced—but equally the detail. Government is about making decisions but it is also about listening and the Government simply do not have the humility to listen, the patience to debate or the ability to implement the detail properly. We will be voting for the reasoned amendment and fighting the Bill line by line in Committee, and we reserve the right to vote against the Bill on Third Reading unless there are substantial improvements to it.

Nick Hurd: This has been a short debate on a Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) rightly described as being very significant. It is significant in its potential impact on a large number of organisations, many of which perform significant functions and employ a large number of people. My fellow Hillingdon MP, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), was quite right to remind the House of the impact of the changes on human beings. Let me reassure him that I am extremely happy to meet him and the PCS group to clarify any confusion that might exist in relation to TUPE. I give that undertaking in good faith.
	The debate was interesting in that it launched the Labour party’s campaign to “Back the Apple”—this from the party that introduced the cider tax! The irony has been lost on them. More seriously, it is clear that there are still profound concerns about some of the proposals on the table and that there is more need than ever for Ministers’ continued engagement regarding the Bill during its progress through Committee, should it get its Second Reading, and through the consultation processes that will have to flow in anticipation of the orders that will in turn flow from the Bill. Many arguments will be made, won and lost in that process. That is quite clear from the debate.
	In the time available I will try to address some of the specific concerns that have been raised, but it is important to register that no one in the debate has, as far as I could
	tell, argued for the status quo. The case for reform appears to have been won, although, having listened to Opposition Front Benchers I am not entirely convinced. The truth is that when they were in power they were a lot better at moving quangos around than at abolishing them. Frankly, at the end of the Opposition spokesman’s remarks, I was no clearer about what on earth they would do if they were in power. There continues to be a complete fog about that. It is all very well talking about the case for reform, but sometimes one has to get up and do something.
	The case for reform was made extremely powerfully by my hon. Friends the Members for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and for Watford (Richard Harrington). The case was made particularly eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley), who talked about the need to shine a light of accountability and transparency, with which I entirely agreed. My observation from my constituency is that people are deeply frustrated by how complex and expensive government has become. They would like it to be simplified and for it to be easier to find out who is in charge. They would like us to bear down with much greater discipline on waste and cost inflation, not least on salary inflation. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South West Norfolk.
	Given the cluttered and confused landscape that is quangoland, it would have been quite irresponsible for a new Government not to have embarked on a review of public bodies. We believe very strongly that by substantially reducing the number of bodies, returning functions to central Government where appropriate, and establishing a legislative framework for the outcomes of future reviews, the Bill takes a major step towards a simpler, more accountable approach to Government. The Bill will support the delivery of administrative savings from public bodies, as part of the Government’s commitment to delivering the effective, value-for-money systems that taxpayers rightly expect. Those principles should enjoy widespread support across the House, and I am very disappointed by the position of the Opposition in that respect.
	There was consensus across the House that the Bill had been improved by the deliberations in the other place; I am happy to confirm that that is our view, too. There were questions, not least from my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex, for City of Chester, and for Esher and Walton, about the triennial review, which is an important part of the new process that we are setting up. I assure them all that further detail will be forthcoming on how that review will work.
	There was very little controversy, as far as I could tell, about the structure of the Bill, now that it has passed through the other place. Where there were concerns, they tended to focus explicitly on the ideas for particular bodies. I should like to focus on those that are clearly more controversial. I start with the office of chief coroner. We heard powerful speeches from the right hon. Members for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), and from the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), and for North Durham (Mr Jones). I pay particular tribute to the speeches of the right hon. Members for Coventry
	North East, and for Wythenshawe and Sale East, because they had the benefit of drawing on direct ministerial experience, some of which was clearly very powerful and difficult.

Kevan Jones: What about me?

Nick Hurd: The hon. Gentleman was not bad, either. There are clearly arguments to be made, and won or lost. The Government clearly have to listen very hard, but the point that I would make to Members who have understandable concerns about the proposal is that there is no argument about the need for reform. As the hon. Member for Hartlepool said, we all recognise that a much better service is required for families. There is a problem around variation in quality; he made that point well. Nor is there any argument about the need for the functions of the chief coroner; the proposal is that they be transferred, not abolished. The question is: can we have reform without the person—or without the person right now, because the Government are retaining some flexibility on that point? The concern is about whether the reforms can be delivered without incurring what, on the face of it, are significant set-up and running costs—costs that were effectively ratified by the previous Government, because they commissioned the impact assessment.

Kevan Jones: The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General told us when he opened the debate that the reason behind the decision on the chief coroner’s office was money. Is the Parliamentary Secretary comfortable going against one of the main recommendations made by Dame Janet Smith in the Shipman report—that the coroner’s office be independent of Government?

Nick Hurd: Cost is a significant factor in the circumstances that we face, and we should not underestimate its importance as a consideration for the Ministry of Justice. It is committed to reform; the question is: how can those reforms be delivered in the most cost-effective way? It is clear, as I said, that the arguments will have to be made through the processes that lie before us.

Bob Ainsworth: There are processes that are to be performed, and if consistency is to be applied, there will be costs. Either the processes will be done by an independent person who is part of the coronial system or, under the monstrous proposal from the Government, somehow Ministers will do them under a coronial system. It cannot be done that way.

Nick Hurd: It is obviously the responsibility of the Government to consider all the costs, but the right hon. Gentleman is ignoring the role of the Lord Chief Justice. I come back to the point that the Government recognise, as we all do, the need for reform; the question is how those reforms can be delivered in the most cost-effective way. That is the debate that will roll through Committee and beyond. Clearly, feelings run high on the issue in this House and the other place.

Bernard Jenkin: My hon. Friend is making an emollient and helpful speech, but the real question is not how these issues will be dealt with during the passage of the Bill, but how they will be properly debated and adjudicated on by Parliament after the Bill is on the statute book.
	Will he give the House a general undertaking that these contentious issues concerning bodies that were established by primary legislation will be the subject of proper and reasonable consultation and debate when the orders come before Parliament, and that there will be an opportunity for Parliament to exercise the influence it would have exercised had we been confronted with primary legislation?

Nick Hurd: My hon. Friend’s question goes to the heart of the debate about how the Bill is structured. He understands that if this enabling Bill is enacted, it will be the responsibility of Ministers to come to this place with orders, having consulted where that remains appropriate, and make their case, with appropriate safeguards in terms of scrutiny and the capacity of the House to require the enhanced affirmative procedure. There was no serious discussion of this during the debate, but, with reference to the safeguarding procedures, I think we are in a much better place than when we started and when his Committee examined the Bill.

John McDonnell: On the point about process, because some aspects of the Bill are more contentious than others and the Government have moved from the affirmative procedure to the enhanced affirmative procedure, there may well be the opportunity on some issues to move to the super-affirmative procedure, which allows room for further amendment.

Nick Hurd: That has been considered and rejected. The enhanced affirmative procedure is considered to be adequate and proportionate. That seemed to be accepted by the other place.
	I shall move on in order to give proper space for the other most contentious issue, which concerns S4C. Again, we heard powerful speeches from the hon. Members for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), who is in her place, for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), and for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), and from my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) and for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire expressed the deep passions that the proposal has aroused. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy that his office had been vandalised or attacked as a response to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire described S4C as the cultural backbone of Wales—a powerful phrase. The debate is about how we sustain S4C as an independent service that retains its own brand identity.

Glyn Davies: The one issue that still concerns us is the arrangements for future governance. We seek an assurance that there will be genuine consultation and opportunity for the people of Wales to have an input into that consultation. We are looking to the Minister to give us a commitment on that.

Nick Hurd: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the reassurance that the Department is extremely sensitive to concerns. As he knows, the funding settlement reduces S4C’s funding by the same amount as the DCMS’s, at about 25% over the comprehensive spending review period. We consider that fair. I do not think there is an argument about the unsustainability of the current funding arrangements for S4C. The proposed amendment
	described in the written ministerial statement—it was reassuring that many colleagues took great comfort from the statement—makes it clear that S4C will be funded for the long term to deliver its vital statutory functions. Everything we are proposing is about how we protect S4C, not undermine it.
	Let me touch on the Agricultural Wages Board. The hon. Members for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) were eloquent on the subject. The Agricultural Wages Board was set up to represent agricultural workers and ensure that they are paid appropriately. That is an example of a body that is no longer needed, as pay for all workers is protected by the national minimum wage, so there is no longer a need for separate representation for agricultural workers, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington).

Andrew George: I lead on DEFRA matters for the Liberal Democrats and hope that the Minister understands that I oppose the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board. Rural workers are exceptionally isolated and in an exceptional position that I think justifies exceptional protections.

Nick Hurd: I think that the House understands, as the Government certainly do, that the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the abolition, but I do not think that that changes our view that separate representation for agricultural workers is no longer needed.

Elizabeth Truss: Farmers in my constituency certainly want less regulation, rather than more, which will enable them to be more productive and export more crops, and surely the minimum wage is effective cover for protecting workers. We need to ensure greater exports from Britain, which we will not achieve through further regulation.

Nick Hurd: My hon. Friend is right that the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board is not about driving down wages and conditions for agricultural workers, but about removing regulatory burdens on farm businesses and allowing them to focus on the business of farming.

Jack Dromey: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Hurd: I will not, with great respect, because I have given way a great deal and have limited time in which to draw my remarks to a close.
	I would like to return to the core issue of why we believe the Bill is needed and deserves a Second Reading: the benefits it will deliver for good government in this country. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office announced the results of a radical review programme, as a result of which we proposed that almost 500 bodies should be reformed, and in many instances those reforms are already complete or in progress. However, a large number of those bodies have a statutory basis, so legislation is required to turn the Government’s proposals into reality. In some cases departmental Bills provide an appropriate vehicle for the changes, but where that is not the case the Public Bodies Bill represents a sensible legislative solution. It gives the Government the necessary powers to take forward these much-needed reforms without Departments having to wait for primary legislation, preventing unnecessary delay where the case for change is clear.
	The Bill achieves that by giving Ministers a series of powers, outlined in clauses 1 to 5, to make changes to public bodies through secondary legislation, subject to a number of safeguards, the completion of a consultation process and the approval of Parliament. I emphasise that those powers are strictly limited in scope. The powers to make orders apply only to the bodies and offices listed in the corresponding schedule to the Bill, to which bodies can be added only through primary legislation, meaning that Parliament will remain the ultimate arbiter over when the use of those powers is appropriate.
	Following a review by the other place, important changes have been made to the Bill. Specifically, we have arrived at mechanisms to include a number of proportionate restrictions on the use of the powers set out in the Bill. On independence, we have introduced provision in clause 7 to prevent the Bill from being used in a way that prevents important public functions, such as those of a judicial nature, from being amended in a way that stops them being exercised independently of Ministers. On consultation, we have required that Ministers consult on their proposals before laying a draft order before Parliament. The Bill now provides the option of selecting an enhanced scrutiny procedure for any draft order, giving Parliament and its Committees 60 days to consider a proposal and make representations to Ministers. Clause 12 sunsets the contents of the schedules after five years.
	In summary, the reforms we have proposed and that have been debated again today will produce a leaner and more effective system of public bodies centred on the principle of ministerial accountability. We have listened intently to the comments and concerns expressed during the debate and recognise that there are areas where the Government can helpfully produce further clarity and assurance, and the Deputy Leader of the House and I look forward to continuing to engage with hon. Members in Committee and elsewhere.
	However, I reiterate my hope that the House can come together in support of the belief that ministerial accountability for public functions and the use of public money should be at the heart of how we conduct ourselves. The Government believe that the proposals embodied in the Bill and in our plans for a regular comprehensive review of all public bodies will set a new standard for the management and review of public bodies, and on that basis I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 231, Noes 307.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2)), That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
	Question agreed  to .
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Public Bodies Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Public Bodies Bill [Lords]:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 13 October 2011.
	3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Stephen Crabb.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 304, Noes 229.

Question accordingly agreed to.

PUBLIC BODIES BILL [LORDS] (MONEY)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Public Bodies Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of the Act or an order under the Act; and
	(b) any increase attributable to such an order in the sums which under any other Act are payable out of money so provided.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)
	Question agreed to.

PUBLIC BODIES BILL [LORDS] (WAYS AND MEANS)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Public Bodies Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the making of provision under the Act in relation to income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, stamp duty reserve tax or stamp duty land tax in connection with a transfer of property, rights or liabilities by a scheme under the Act.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)
	Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 7 and 8 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Charities

That the draft Charities Act 2006 (Changes in Exempt Charities) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 12 May, be approved.
	That the draft Charities Act 2006 (Principal Regulators of Exempt Charities) Regulations 2011, which were laid before this House on 12 May, be approved.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Equality

That the draft Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011, which were laid before this House on 13 May, be approved.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)
	The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 13 July (Standing Order No. 41A).

Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 10 to 13 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Offender Management

That the draft Co-operation in Public Protection Arrangements (UK Border Agency) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 23 May, be approved.

Electronic Communications

That the draft Communications Act 2003 (Maximum Penalty for Contravention of Information Requirements) Order 2011, which was laid before this House on 23 May, be approved.

Energy

That the draft Renewable Heat Incentive (Amendment to the Energy Act 2008) Regulations 2011, which were laid before this House on 20 June, be approved.
	That the draft Renewable Heat Incentive Regulations 2011, which were laid before this House on 20 June, be approved.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Equality

That the draft Equality Act 2010 (Specific Duties) Regulations 2011, which were laid before this House on 27 June, be approved.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)
	The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 13 July (Standing Order No. 41A).

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

European Semester of Economic Policy Co-ordination

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 11491/11, relating to a Commission communication on concluding the first European Semester of economic policy co-ordination, No. 11196/11: relating to a Draft Council Recommendation on the UK’s National Reform Programme 2011 and a Council opinion on its updated Convergence Programme for 2011-2014, and No. SEC(2011)736, relating to a Commission Staff Working Document on the assessment of the UK’s 2011 National Reform Programme and Convergence Programme; welcomes the Commission’s support for the Government’s efforts to reduce the deficit, which is consistent with the conclusions reached by the IMF and the OECD in their recent reviews of the UK economy; welcomes the conclusion of the first European Semester, but notes the Government’s maintenance of the scrutiny reserve at Council and European Council as part of its concerns about a timetable which has not permitted proper Parliamentary scrutiny; welcomes the Government’s intention to press for more timely publication of these documents in future; and welcomes the Government’s policy of securing assurances that the UK cannot be subject to sanctions in respect of the Stability and Growth Pact under existing Treaty provisions or proposed new legislation on economic governance.—(Miss Chloe Smith.)
	Question agreed to.

Political and constitutional reform committee

Ordered,
	That Yasmin Qureshi be added to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee.—(Miss Smith.)

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT (WALSALL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Miss  Chloe  Smith.)

Mr Speaker: Before I ask the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) to rise from his seat, I appeal to Members leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly, in order to afford the same courtesy to the hon. Gentleman that they would wish to be extended to them in the same circumstances.

David Winnick: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	I applied for this debate in view of the serious youth unemployment in the Walsall area and particularly in my constituency. The latest figures show that, in my constituency, just under 16% of people in the 18 to 24 age group are claiming jobseeker’s allowance. I am pleased to see the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the Front Bench tonight, as well as the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). I should point out to them that that rate of just under 16% is the third highest in England. The situation in the other parts of the borough is not much different, and it is certainly still higher than the national average.
	Let me state what should be obvious: unemployment is a curse to all those seeking work, and no less so to young people who want to get started in life. I emphasise again, as I have done in this House over the years, that we ourselves do not wish to become unemployed through losing our seats at any stage, and that we are always anxious to find work, and the same applies to the overwhelming majority of those who are registered unemployed.

Iain Duncan Smith: indicated assent.

David Winnick: I am glad to see the Secretary of State nodding in agreement. There is understandably considerable concern over the position locally. I fear a return to the situation in the 1980s, when two major recessions had a devastating effect not only on the borough but on the black country and on the west midlands in general.
	Let me give the House an illustration of the situation nearly 26 years ago. In September 1985, more than one fifth of the age group that I am referring to were on unemployment benefit in the borough of Walsall. The situation improved over a period of time, and it certainly did so in the first years of this century. In May 2004, the youth unemployment percentage in Walsall was down to 7%. Even then, however, it was higher than the national average. I ask the Ministers to tell the House when we are likely to see the percentage go down to that figure that pertained seven years ago. Last year, youth unemployment rose in the three constituencies of Walsall North, Walsall South and Aldridge-Brownhills.
	I do not challenge the fact that as the global recession took effect from 2008 onwards, unemployment grew. It is clear; the figures show it. I am not going to dispute what is, after all, quite obvious. There are bound to be continuing debates about how to deal with the recession
	and, indeed, about how it came about. My purpose tonight, however, is not to engage in that wider debate—there will be many opportunities in which I am sure I will participate—but to concentrate on the borough and the particular constituency of Walsall North that I represent and on what can be done to provide more opportunities for those without employment. That is the purpose of tonight’s Adjournment debate.
	The sharp decline in manufacturing—what is sometimes referred to as metal-bashing—is clearly an important factor, not only for Walsall, but for what are usually described as the four black country boroughs. Walsall council’s latest review, looking at the overall employment situation in the borough, noted that in 2009, quite a number of new enterprises arose. That was very good. Unfortunately, however, there were quite a significant number of job losses. The net loss in 2009 was somewhere in the region of 285 jobs. Yes, jobs come in, but too many also go out.
	As for vacancies, the figures show that 10.8 people—I use the exact figure—go after every job. I hope that there will be no disagreement about the fiction that there are jobs here and jobs there, so that those registered as unemployed—whether in the 18 to 24 age group or older—are not particularly keen to get work and are not willing to try to get it. All that is absolute fiction. I have seen reports in the paper on many occasions that when a vacancy occurs, there are sometimes as many as 40, 50 or even 100 people applying for it. As I said at the start, if we take the view, with which Ministers agreed, that those who are unemployed are keen and want to work, it is not surprising that people chase after vacancies and take every opportunity to try either to get into work for the first time or to get back into work.
	What I want to find out tonight is what steps the Government intend to take, particularly in boroughs like mine. Let me point out again that this borough is the third highest in England for youth unemployment. What measures are the Government going to take? What feeling can people in my constituency and in the borough have for the fact that the Government recognise the urgency of the position and are willing to act on it?
	I know that a number of measures have been publicised. Insofar as they are positive and will bring work and bring down unemployment, I will obviously welcome them. It would be strange otherwise. However, I ask Ministers when these measures that have been mentioned and published are going to come into effect. Have any of the measures on youth unemployment yet come into effect? Moreover, what priority will the Minister give in his reply to areas of high youth unemployment? It is important for him to answer that question.
	There is no doubt that we need more apprentices. It is unfortunate that, more in my part of the country than in other areas, too many leave school at the first opportunity. Here we are talking about the under-18s. In a debate on education maintenance allowance that I initiated in January, I demonstrated that the percentage who received the allowance in the borough and in my constituency was very high indeed.
	As the House knows, EMA is paid to those who stay at school after the age of 16 when the income of their households is relatively low. Unfortunately, the Government took measures to undermine the allowance. I do not know whether that is a controversial thing for me to say in a debate in which I have tried to avoid controversy,
	but I do know that the steps taken by the last Government through EMA to encourage 16-year-olds to stay at school were very useful. It is clear that more training opportunities are needed, so that those who leave school at 16 or 17—which I think we all agree is too early—can obtain the necessary skills and need not spend years, perhaps the rest of their working lives, in unskilled work with all the insecurities that that involves.
	I said that I had applied for the debate because of the seriousness of the situation, and it is indeed a serious situation. As a constituency Member, I have a duty to do what I can to highlight the difficulties and bring them to the attention of the House of Commons, which, after all, is one of the responsibilities of a Member of Parliament. I have done that in the past, and I shall continue to do it for as long as I sit in the House. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy me that the measures announced by the Government will be effective, and will come into operation soon.

Chris Grayling: We meet again, Mr Speaker, although not quite as late as the last occasion on which we debated youth unemployment in the Chamber.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) on securing the debate, and also on the measured way in which he addressed what I regard as a very serious issue. We have had quite a few debates about it, and I must say that his approach was commendable in comparison with that of some Members to whom I have listened.
	I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the issue, and about the future of young people in his constituency. Let me tell him about the measures that we are taking to address the problem. It is a long-standing problem, not simply a problem of the recession years. During the past decade, from 2003-04 until the present day, there has been a steady increase in youth unemployment in this country—even during what have been relatively prosperous times economically—although the national figures for the last two months show a significant drop, which is of course welcome.
	The hon. Gentleman was right to focus on the number of young people in his constituency who receive jobseeker’s allowance. All too often people focus on the number of unemployed people according to the International Labour Organisation measure, which includes a substantial number of full-time students and somewhat distorts the true picture. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in his constituency there has been a small increase—small in comparison with the previous position—in the number of unemployed young people receiving JSA over the last 12 months, but there was a much bigger and fairly steady increase over the previous decade.
	There is indeed a problem that we must address, and to which we must deliver solutions. One of those solutions involves stimulating economic growth in what are still challenging times economically. We are particularly concerned about regions where there have been significant economic changes, where there is a smaller private sector than we might wish and higher public sector employment than in other areas, and where there is a particular labour market challenge. The regional growth fund—we announced the first tranche of RGF
	projects recently, and will announce further projects in due course—is designed to stimulate and support manufacturing, research and related areas of business in parts of the country where we need to build up and strengthen the manufacturing base, the research base and the skills base.
	I would argue—I suspect this might be a point of difference between the hon. Gentleman and me—that the measures we are taking to address the deficit, challenging though they may be, are a necessary part of creating a stable economic environment where businesses will grow and invest and create jobs. Over the past 12 months there has been good growth in private sector employment in the UK. About 500,000 new private sector jobs, the majority of them full-time, have been created over that period, but it remains a concern that, despite that, there has been very little change in the numbers on jobseeker’s allowance. That is certainly the experience for young people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
	Job opportunities have been created, therefore, but we are not seeing people move into those jobs, so what do we do about that? There are three particular steps that we are taking. The hon. Gentleman asked when some of the measures we have proposed will be put into action, and my answer is that they are in place now. They are relatively new—they are in the early stages—but they are there, and we are working hard now to address some of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised.
	Let me now describe those three key parts—they are not the only parts—of our strategy. The first issue is how we might provide support for the shorter-term unemployed young people, to get them into the workplace. The vast majority of young people who sign on to JSA are in work within a few months. Of those who have been out of work for nine months, only a small proportion of those who signed on on day one are still out of work. For that first group who get into work in the shorter term, we want to accelerate the process and make sure they move into work without spending those first few months on JSA looking for work.
	Crucially, that is where our work experience scheme comes into play. It has its origins in an e-mail I received from the mother of a teenage girl shortly after I was appointed to my post last year. She said her daughter had just sorted out a month’s work experience for herself, and that it was clearly the right thing for her to do, but that she had been told by the jobcentre that if she did that work she would lose her benefits. That is clearly a mad situation, and we swiftly moved to address it. What we have done is turn that on its head, by saying that it is a good thing for young people to do work experience, as it gives them a first taste of the workplace and a period of time to prove to a potential employer that they have skills that that employer might wish to retain, and so we are now allowing young people to do up to eight weeks of work experience while continuing to claim JSA.
	Furthermore, our Jobcentre Plus employer relations teams around the country are actively looking for work experience opportunities for young people. At the last count, we had about 35,000 committed placements over the next year. We have already placed many thousands of young people into work experience opportunities, and we are starting to see some of them move into employment as a result of that, some staying with those who provided the work experience. It will take time for
	the programme to build right across all the young people who could potentially benefit from it, but I am very keen about this, particularly this summer when another generation of school and college leavers will be coming into the labour market. Our team in Jobcentre Plus will be working hard to give those young people a rapid opportunity to gain real work experience, and not for one week or two weeks, but for an extended period with the hope that in many cases the employer who takes them on will take a look at that young person and say, “Actually, they’re rather good. I’d like to be able to keep them, and we’ll offer them a position.” That has certainly been our experience so far; that is what has been happening in a number of cases. Even if there is not a job opportunity for the young person, we hope that that couple of months of experience—and, I hope, a positive reference from the employer—will give them a leg up in applying for a further vacancy.
	The second part of the equation is also crucial to our strategy to help young people. It is the big increase in the number of apprenticeships. We took a decision very early on, because we think apprenticeships are a better path to help young people down than some of the schemes we inherited from the previous Government. I know that there has been great debate about the future jobs fund, but our view is that a big increase in the number of apprenticeships, with almost 100,000 extra over the past year, is a better way of providing long-term opportunities. This is not simply about the training that people gain as an apprentice; the skills they gain in the workplace over an extended period lasting one, two or three years are much more likely to give a young person the foundation for a long-term career. The increase in the number of apprenticeships that we have seen over the past few months will be sustained over the course of this Parliament. These apprenticeships will be available to the young people leaving school and college this summer, and it is very much my hope that many young people who go through those two months of work experience will then be able to stay on as apprentices. I am absolutely of the view that the increased number of apprenticeships is a crucial part of dealing with the issues in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, which he rightly raises.

David Winnick: I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying, but it does not alter the fact that the number of apprenticeships in my constituency remains very small compared with elsewhere. I am still wondering how extensive the concentration will be on the areas—this is not just about my constituency, by any means—where the level of unemployment is so high among young people.

Chris Grayling: This is very much about us collectively, by which I mean the hon. Gentleman, as a Member of Parliament, and Ministers in overseeing Jobcentre Plus and in our work to try to engage employers in the work experience scheme. One of our key goals has to be to encourage employers to get involved in the apprenticeship scheme and take on apprentices. I think that taking on a good apprentice is a very good way for the employer to add skills at a relatively low cost to their organisation, and we can all play a part in helping that to happen. I give him an absolute commitment that we in the
	Department for Work and Pensions, in partnership with the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, will work extremely hard to engage employers, including in the hon. Gentleman’s area. I know that his area contains some very good employers and some employers who have recruited from overseas in the past. I would much rather see them recruiting local apprentices, developing them and giving them opportunities. We are very happy to work with him to do anything we can to help engage and involve employers in his constituency. If he is not already in discussion with the employer outreach team in Jobcentre Plus in his area, I would be happy to arrange for such discussions to take place.
	The third and newest piece of our jigsaw puzzle to deal with this problem is the introduction of the Work programme, which began in mid-June in the hon. Gentleman’s area. We have a good team of providers in the Birmingham area, who will have centres all around the west midlands—there will be centres in Walsall, Wolverhampton and Birmingham. I strongly believe that the Work programme provides the additional piece that is needed to deal with longer-term youth unemployment and, in particular, to help those who have come from the most challenged backgrounds. I have no doubt that some of the jobseeker’s allowance claimants in his constituency, to whom he refers, are young people who have come out of some of the most challenging backgrounds, and who have left school early without proper skills development and without qualifications. They may well have come from workless households, where they have not had experience of a parent going out to work in the morning. They represent one of the biggest challenges we face in the labour market. Helping them, motivating them and guiding them towards an entry into the labour market is an extremely important challenge for us, and I see it as a central part of what the Work programme providers are there to do.
	The Work programme is very clearly intended to be a revolution in the way in which we deliver welfare to work, and I have been visiting providers today in the east midlands to talk about what they are doing. That revolution is most clearly to be found in two things. The first is the freedoms we are giving private, voluntary and public sector organisations involved in the Work programme and working together in teams to decide what works best, to adapt to change and to pursue best practice but, above all, to find the best way of helping people to move into the workplace and stay there. The second crucial part of this revolution is the fact that the scheme is based on payment by results. For the first three years of seven-year contracts, the providers will get a small up-front payment and after that no up-front payment at all; the next money they see will come when someone has been in work for six months. They will have a real incentive to find the best practice and particularly to match individuals to the right vacancy to help them stay in work over a sustained period.

David Winnick: I asked the Minister when we were likely to return to the situation we faced in 2004. In my remarks, I have tried to avoid controversy so far as it is possible for me to do so, but he will know that I disagree with the Government’s overall economic policy as I think it is deepening the economic downturn. Having said that—I very much mean it, too, as I think the
	present economic policy is far too severe—may I ask when my part of the world is likely to see the same sort of situation with youth unemployment, if not adult unemployment, as we did in 2004?

Chris Grayling: I would love to get a crystal ball out for the hon. Gentleman, but sadly I am not an economic forecaster and I would not want to try to make such an estimate. The official forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, however, expect an increase in employment over the next four years, even after we take into account job losses in the public sector, of just under 1 million positions. Over the past 12 months, private sector employment around the country has increased by about 500,000.
	Our key goal should be to ensure that young people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and their counterparts elsewhere who are on jobseeker’s allowance and who are struggling to get into work get all the help they need to take advantage of those jobs as they are created. The OBR will continue to publish forecasts and it is our intention to pursue a growth agenda that fosters and encourages business growth and the creation of jobs. I hope that as the OBR reflects circumstances and the impact of our policies, we will get closer to being able to give him an answer, but I fear that I cannot do that tonight.
	I will say, however, that the increase the hon. Gentleman has seen is not simply down to the recession. It is a longer-term trend and problem. Employers are reluctant to take young people straight from school, college and university and sometimes it is easier to recruit from overseas. Our job, as well as that of the teams delivering the work experience opportunities, those delivering apprenticeship opportunities and those working extremely hard on the Work programme, is to ensure that those young people take advantage and get into the vacancies as and when they arise. That will give a generation of young people a genuine opportunity to move into work.
	I do not want to see a large number of young people stranded on benefits for years and years and I share the hon. Gentleman’s aspiration to tackle the youth unemployment problem. I am happy to continue to work with him to discuss the issues in his constituency and to encourage our Jobcentre Plus teams to work with him to address those problems. I give him a commitment that youth unemployment in his constituency, and around the country, is a priority for us and we will do everything we can to ease it. We believe it should be at the very top of the Government’s agenda and it will continue to be there until we have cracked it.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.